a think it is important to continue to proceed, and a think the market needs to understand that these rules are being placed in the need that to adapt as well. once they know what the rules are, the financial sector is pretty good at complying with them and figuring out how to do it. some sequencing might well have so errands. >> with the harmonization? thus even on the international front, and the you hear different things from some. this is getting his sea legs, but it is forcing us all to get together have the staff talks regularly. having thus been a good deal of harmonization that includes the international front. they are really -- in addition to resolution authority, we have strong capital buffers. i think there has been the work of harmonization. and we should continue to focus on that.

another is concerned about the treatment of derivatives rules, and we're talking witeach other. that may be that sometimes you want some differentiation. wante probably going to more finish with the banks and then was completely outside the safety net. there may be reasons for differentiation. >> and his international harmonization, and they are shrinking from an international level and a level playing field. you mentioned capital standards. i understand, there is a balance here, i want to measure the width of safety and fairness, also want to make sure that we of lending and economic recovery. are you wrestling with that?

the way that when you're going through this process? >> the primary focus has to be with the capital requirement, hitting that sector to be leveraged about the french rolls, it is more expensive than equity. a double hull not only provide a better buffer, it will help differentiate funding costs of the capital discussions have been tgeted primarily at the larger institutions. have been larger institutions holding companies regarding the quality of capital. the companies have something called trust's preferred securities that ended up having that is only capital issue. >> my time is short, but i want to ask you about the trm.

to insure the lower down payment, it will be part of the qrm. >> that is out for comment. there is a private sector mortgage insurer. i think those are the things early to think about. and mortgage insurance can be a good product, but do it was demand for it driven by markets or regulations giving them an extra penny? i know you feel about the markets the way i do and that maybe the trade off that we think hard about. >> was it you who said that you

thought that consumer protection and safety and soundness or two issues on the same side of the coin? >> general abuses will end up costing banks money. but just banks. mortgages are a prime example. more of it was on the side of banks that consumers could not afford. the defaulted and a lot of losses incurred. >> when he sees going together, we want to make sure that the consumers are protected and treated fairly clear in will also want to have banks in the profitable, make sure that they are not going under? do you have a concern when we separate consumer protection

from safety and soundness? the commented on the mission statement that there was no reference to safety and soundness. does that give you some pause or some concern? are you ok with the oversight that comes from outside? >> we support the consumer agency. there are different iterations early on, but i support the final outcome. we think it is a positive thing that they will be on the board because they will provide an interaction to make sure that they are considered together. >> they don't have that consideration. reciprocity,for but given that, i think that again, we're fine with how it

came out. it is important to understand how it has always been separate from the enforcement process. >> he talked about reciprocity, and you don't really have its except to review what is coming. the standard is so high, you need seven out of 10 votes to overturn the rule and the director is one of the members. it is incredibly high, and he risked their, we're talking about playing russian roulette with the economy. i introduced a bill that will reduce the requirement to just a simple majority of some pretty signifant folks. we talked about reducing the stdard. but if the rule was

inconsistent. it could be overturned. the thing that is reasonable that we have a different standard of how we can coordinate consumer protection with safety and soundness? >> there are a lot of things that all of us would have written differently. at the end of the day it was a mpromise. we can support the final product. if it can work. >> can we improve upon it? >> if you're going to draw me into a situation where -- and thank you. >> i am from a more rural district with zero community banks, credit unions we don't have big wall street banks in our district and i hear this nonstop from my local bankers. we're talking about how they are crushed by some many rules and

some any regulations. the impac that it has on them, we don't have the ability to diversify the cost. you may hire a lawyer or a compliance officer in the costs go up. that makes it difficult for us to compete with bigger banks. sometimes we can't even stand the market anymore. it is the lifeblood othe economy. and this is not stopped coming from them and i don't know if you're hearing the same thing or trying to figure out how we can still be safe. but still have rules that allow the local bankers and don't have anything t do with the financial crisis to do business. >> i think they have a point. every time you have a new safety requirements, the incremental cost of doing that will be significantly higher and we should do a better job of taking that into account.

of all the problems, we have had a lot of them. this is a problem of scale that affects a very large service. if they're going to be a lot of new rules on servicing, and see a basis for and where in all of that on the smaller banks as well. the smaller banks have really been relegated. and we want them to diversify eir balance sheets. the regulatory barriers, holding back into those lines of business may be an impediment. of like them to do more mortgages again. i think that we should look very hard at the structure. the issues are completely different. >> that is something you are taking a look at. >> and we have an adviser on community banking. there are a number of the ideas

for making regulations more effective. at the very top we say it applies to community banks shot. we ought to the community bank impact and why it willpply the community banks. we're looking at more automaon. rell the fdic can act where every year kid is going to update. >> i appreciate that because we hear that from the community banks. i appreciate your looking at that. i yield back. >> and the chairman has consented to go to a second round of questioning. and we're still going to be calling for votes in the next 15 or 20 minutes. i will go ahead and start the second round.

i appreciate you spending time with that. we also had a discussion in the markup for the bills. on the differences or the interchange ability or not of safety and soundness and profitability for banks, one witness said that safety and soundness is used as a code word by the institutions as profitability. by trying to reshape or reform this, using safety and soundness, we are being accused of protecting the prots of an institution. and i think while a safe and sound bank may realize a profit, that is a good thing. a profitable bank is not necessarily safe or sound. could you comment on the surgeon and the interchange ability of that? often they are two sides of the

same coin. a product does not serve consumers or the customer's long term benefits and it will be a product at loses money for you and can result in litigation exposure as well. we're seeing that with the relaxed lending on mortgages and the litigatio on overdraft protection. having sensitivity from goods and business practices from the outside are eventually going to lose money. there will probably default or at could result in litigation exposure. on the other hand, i think you need to have -- need to have a full analysis of changesor the safety and soundness of how it is going to impact the financial health of the institution. and i think those factors need to be waived.

you need to consult with the bank regulators. there are ways built and now. >> safe and soundonsumer products will, and the long run, in your opinion, bring about profitability for the institution? >> yes. >> and while there is a distinction between safety and soundness and profitability, the un safe product or the one that takes it too far is eventually going to be a non profitable an instrument for the institution. >> my final question, we'll talk a little bit about commission and the one to draw you into a political argument on that, but in looking at your own

commission, or corporation, the service the chair, have the vice chair. , it is going to be grandfathered out or however in july. it is a chair that we don't have. it isot such in the imagination to say that it will have to be senate confirmed. we have the independent director that also has an expired term. ande losing your expertise the longevity and history. another you're not really going far. in all fairness to you and to the corporation, this means to live on for me, it is a

political statement. these appointments out and get the senate confirmed. let's have stability here or we will end up ia situation where there is an ever-changing transitional situation where it causes me concern. >> i have profound concerns and i am frustrated that there is not greater urgency. i am very worried about my agency. it could go down to the boa members after i leave. the names are not up yet, and there are still vacancies. i think this is very urgent. [unintelligible]

there are still reforms to be implemented in a comprehensive and effective way. having a two-member or three- member board making these decisions is not a good thing. >> having a director in place on july 21, this is a great concern for me also. 44 senators have signed a letter saying that they will not confirm anyone. other policy positions that they want such as losing the funding to the political appropriations process, it may make it more difficult for them to do their jobs. i think this is a tremendous

abuse of the confirmation process basically holding the entire congress hostage, that you have to look -- we have to write legislation. five or six major editorial boards. the good government groups will remove it from politics or the democratic or republican perspective that these have gotten dismantled, disrupted, and destroyed for the consumer financial agency they will have to gut the entire agency and make it basically a non- performing situation. of leave the have a role to play in protecting consumers -- there

is a degree of profitability that they will end up on the street and the overall finances were greater. you can go out and buy a house. it was so easy to get a mortgage. it became clogged and the system and helped bring down the financial crisis. there is a basic disagreement between the republican party and the democratic party. the democratic party supportscfpb. -- supports the cfpb. you have republican senators saying that they will not

confirm anyone unless you do exactly what we want. using it, taking hostage the entire legislative process to get what they want. they have forced the president really with no other choice since he supports it and the overwhelming majority, they would like someone to look at their loans, their credit cards, their student loans and making sure that they are fair. making sure there is a fair playing fieldhat consumers can understand what the terms are. that they are printing for everyone out there to understand. we have a basic disagreement between the parties. i do want to address my questions to our distinguished guest in the areas in which she has played such a fundamental

ro. i want to go back to the too big to fail, which is a big issue. i know it is the closest of the hearings we will be having. some have argued repeatedly that the fincial reform law, particularly the orderly backwardion authority, perpetuates rather than eliminates too big to fail. i would like to ask you what is your assessment of the allegations that the authority perpetuates too big to fail. >> i do not believe it is in any way a perpetuation. two big to fail was with us before the crisis. it was reinforced by the bailout. we need to end it. dodd frank gives us the tools --.-frank gives us the tools. i think it is there. the clear legislative intent is there. as i indicated in my testimony, implemented effectively, it will and too big to fail. >> my time is rning out.

which part of the financial reform law did you think is the most critical to ending too big to fail? >> i thi titles one and two. title to brings us the orderly liquidation authority powers for non-banks. we already have it for banks. the little one holds higher standards of -- title one hold higher standards of capital requirements. and they must demonstrate the are resolvable. >> i thank you for your testimony today. i think you for your distinguished service to our country. i think you for your non partisan response to -- i thank you for your non partisan response to questions and policies. i think you have done a wonderful job for our country. >> chairwoman bair, i think you

for being here, for your testimony and your service to our country. the one question i asked before several other people already asked. so i am going to move to another topic. it regards the orderly liquidation authority. i know several times in your testimonyoday, you talked about you believe -- or at least the impression i got was you believe the fdic have authority er liquidation is better than bankruptcy. >> for financial institutions. >> for financial institutis. there a a number of people in the bankruptcy community that believe that if bankruptcy laws changed that bankruptcy would be better. i know a lot of it deals with derivatives. can you give me some ideas of thoughts where you might believe that bankruptcy would be better? one of the issues with bankruptcy is that we are looking out for the creditors as we wind things down. i would like to hear your

thoughts on some things that could be changed in the bankruptcy code that would actually make bankruptcy better. >> i think you are right. how derivatives are traded is very important. we would love to work with this committee and the judiciary. we deal a lot with bankruptcy court. banks we resolve are frequently restructured and go into bankruptcy. we are quite familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the process. how bankruptcy treats derivatives is a big problem. having the ability to require counter parties to continue to perform on their derivative contracts, versus now, where they have the ability to terminate the contract and clinical lateral, is qte disruptive and was a major problem. -- terminate the contract and claim their collateral, is quite disruptive and was a major problem. we were opposed to the kind of bailouts under cig.

they went into bankruptcy process and were fine. the commercial paper was fine. bankruptcy worked just fine. i think there are ways to make bankruptcy work even better. for the larger entities, i think there will be a couple of things we can do that banks will never be able to d first is we will be able to have a continuing on-site presence. we will have ongoing access to information about the counterparty exposure and concentration of overseas operations. with the bankruptcy board, we will be able to do that. similarly, we will be able to plan and work with the international regulatory community as an institution becomes more troubled, to find and identify any options for resolving our domestic entity if they have foreign operations. we do that now. we have resolved banks that are

national -- international operations. one of our bks had a subsidiary in china and hong kong. we identified what we needed to do to make sure that work within our receivership press. we were able to keep the subsidiaryn asia open. theyot the regulatory authority to do that. it is hard to see how bankruptcy court could involved in that kind of international coordination in the event of a failure, or be involved in pre- planning. finally, we can be involved in the "support to maintain franchise value. -- in that liquidity support to maintain franchise of you. -- value. >> i am going to take the question. whenou say you can provide immediate liquidity support, is

that from the ability to go to the treasury? >> yes, for banks. we have the deposit insurance for banks, but for non-banks, we have the ability to withdraw from the treasury. >> that is where the root is of the perception. if you are going to the treasury, you are going to the taxpayer. >> we wanted to pre-fund a reserve. that did not pass the senate. i think it is a very important to emphasize that any funds that are provided through that treasury line have priority over everything else. they are paid off the top. i can't believe there have ever been any losses on that. you are not guaranteeing any liabilities for the non-banking institution. whatever assets are sold, that goes to treasury first. in the unlikely event there would be losses, it would be assessed on the industry, the

way we assess now for deposit insurance. right now, there is no reason for fares of taxpayer exposure on this. that in turn, the fact that the industry would have pay for any losses that would occur, in and of itself will create pressure against creditor differentiation. they will know that the receiver -- we would do this anyway, but if the receiver tries to show favoritism, the loss will go against the industry. >> thank you, madam chair. happy to yield any time you might need. i have really been enjoying this hearing this morning. i want to reiterate the comments my colleagues have made on both sides of the aisle about your candor and straightforward answers. we do not always get that and i think it has a positive effect on the members and the questions they ask. you said before you thought the financial system was healing but

not out of the woods. could you expand on this? >> yes. i think they are still working through some trouble spots. loan volume is down. i think there may be too much risk aversion with some banks. there is also a lack of a borrower demand and banks need to make loans to make money. that is what they are supposed to be doing with their funds and equity to make money. longer term, as i said in my testimony and in an op-ed last december, i am worried about the pressure from the low interest rate environment on bank balance sheets. obviously, banks are heavily exposed to interest-rate volatility. specifically, thei liabilities are shorter than their assets. anything we would do to undermine confidence in this, in the fiscal drink of the united states government, could have an

adverse impact on financial industries. we hope these discussions n produce a lg-term deficit reduction plan. the mortgage market, i think, as i mentioned in testimonyare exposed. >> that was my next line of questioning. you said we need to getortgage lending going again. what are the barriers there? i hear, as i said a minute ago, from bankers and borrowers that regulators are tightenin down and not allowg them to make those loans. >> i think i would put more of a priority on small-business lending. certainly, mortgages in using is an important part of our economy, but we need to accept going forward it will be a smaller part of our economy. it got bloated and overheated. i do think we need ultimately -- there needs to be an exit

strategy. we know that model does not work. >> do you have any idea what model might work? >> it is really outside my portfolio to recommend. i will say this. i think go one way or the other. i think this hybrid model where you have a for-profit entity with a backstop of providing non-profit support was a bad model. going forward, i would say if you are going to continue to have government support, making exclusive. charge for it up front. make sure that is where we stand in terms of what being is -- what is being charged for the credit support. make that explicit. >> explicit and narrower? >> explicit the way the fdic charges insurance premiums for default insurance, they charged

that has the government charged a guarantee fee that accurately reflects the need. one or the other. >> there was some back and forth out lending standards. 20% is huge. i don't see how that works. >> that is the exception, not the rule. i think there are mortgages out there with 20% down payments, but that is meant to be an exception to the general rule. if you are going to securitized mortgages, you need to retain 5% of the risk. if you retain 5% rise, you have a lot of flexibility on the underwriting side. >> what sounds reasonable to you in terms of i think it is a comn of factors. clearly, a borrower with a strong credit history and a low debt to income ratio -- there

may be other flexibility is that you can provide. provide them with bas now. buyou need to have some down payment. >> let me speak one more question. liquidity, as you mentioned -- do you have a view of what we should be doing there? >> one thing we are doi is getting rid of credit ratings in our regulations. that is required by dodd-frank. we had already started telling banks they need to do their own independent evaluation of the creditworthiness of investments and cannot rely on ratings. we used to use ratings for our assessments and we have gotten rid of that. i think that has been in process for some time. like anything, if you are not

all washington, d.c., with the world war >> on your screen is the national world war ii memorial. r memorial -- national world war ii memorial. it was dedicated in 2004 by president george w. bush. on this memorial day eve, we will discuss and look at the world war ii memorial and discuss as well world war ii on the last hour of "washington journal." we are joined by american historian douglas brinkley, who is one of many books is "world war ii memorial: a grateful

nation remembers." thank you for being with us on a hot friday morning. what did it take us some years after world war ii to build and dedicate this monument? guest: remember, world war ii consumed our country. we lost 400,000 americans, many, many more wounded physically and psychologically. se gi's comee home and want to get back to normal, drink coca-cola, go to the movies, be part of the healing of the country. in the 1950's and 1960's, as you did not have or ii veterans standing up, and we had the controversial vietnam war dividing the nation. that was not a good war. suddenly, by 1984, and ronald reagan, i believe was the catalyst -- he went to normandy

and talked about the u.s. army's second rangers climbing the cliffs and getting shot down. all over america in the 1980's, people recognized they had war heroes in the neighborhood. everybody said to stand up, on and on. it created a wave, a notion -- where is our world war ii memorial? many americans, not least of which is senator bob dole of kansas, stood up to make this happen. host: let's talk about the design. who designed it? why are there 56 of these all about? guest: the architect was frederick st. laurent, and it came from a pool of 400 excellent designs picked it right behind me, it's as the virgin islands, the philippines, puerto rico.

alaska and hawaii were not states, so you get those later in the 1950's. all of our territories, and also, washington, d.c. gets 1. it is 56, and on top of all our 56 -- are 56 oak reeds but all round. 56 in all. host: at the end or two end pieces. guest: this is it the atlantic, and the other side is the pacific. our great commander-in-chief franklin roosevelt -- words are car from both sides. in addition to that, if you go over to the pacific side, you see quotations from the great walter lord carved, douglas macarthur. you get people out of the atlantic. in between, there is a lot of efforts made to include women in the story, the rosy the river

story -- rosie the riveter story. norfolk, detroit, a san diego, the airplanes that henry ford built up in dearborn area. it is trying to encompass the entire war experience. host: doug brinkley is our guest, a well-known american historian. we are at the world war ii memorial on the national mall, talking about the memorial as well as world war ii. we want to get your participation as well. we set aside our third line this morning for world war ii veterans. ab ou about 16 million people were in s

administration, about 2 million veterans still survivor from world war ii. we would love to hear from you and get your perspective. doug brinkley, before we got started, there were some school kids yelling at us and having a little bit of fun. you made a sort of an aside comment that this memorial has lost so much of its meaning. what did you mean? guest: unfortunately, memorial day has been a day for barbequeing and a day off and set of remember why you and i are here today, trying to remind people of the cost of freedom. we're talking about world war ii, but all wars. max cleland will be at the american bebattlefield

commission . as a going over to normandy, where money has been put in it for coastal erosion of a cliff, to make sure that the cemetery's properly taken care of. we have to reclaim the holiday, just like president's day, for what the original meaning was not go any kind of programming -- for with the original meaning was. any kind of programming that can show us the cost of our freedom, what our ancestors did for us. host: overall, do you know with a cost of world war ii was? guest: well, the cost was our freedom to read it hitl -- while well --, the cost was our freedom. if hitler had developed the a- bomb before we did. after all, pearl harbor -- we

were bombed at pearl harbor. the germans declared war on the united states. this was not a war chores like the mexican-american war -- this was not a war of choice like the mexican-american war. and the technology, even things we are doing with c-span right now, some of the technology of the film and cable transmissions, the electronic journalism world started changing. everything changed in world war ii. development was intense in so many different area. what about the economic cost? guest: i think it is a small estimate. keep in mind, industrial mobilization -- say a factory in connecticut making women's

blouses, suddenly making parachutes. a company that would make horns suddenly was making a ship of valves. that was the miracle of the world war, the way our country pull together and everybody chipped in with the war effort. we do have a great world war ii memorial across from rosenthal's ghraib photographs of -- great photograph of iwo jima. but that is for the marines. this is america's world war ii memorial. we were all in it together, working to get rid of japanese warlords in german fascism. host: doug brinkley, is there a national world war ii museum? guest: there is in new orleans that started out as a d-day

museum but has branched out to be much more than that. enter higgins started building those landing crafts and if you look at a movie like "saving private ryan," they open up and about 35 men would rush to shore. new orleans was another one of these chubs, and the dream started by steven ambrose -- stephen ambrose, my late friend, historian. if you care about the world war, go to this memorial, and then bring your kids to new orleans for the national museum. at the holocaust museum. oh, it is just remarkable, in the 1990's, when elie weisel, who wrote "night" and other incredible stories of survival,

and he was at auschwitz, and walter cronkite watched it as a q&a. it is mandatory to visit the holocaust museum to understand that side of the world war. host: utah for a long time at the university of new orleans and now teaching at rice university. what are you in d.c. today? guest: i am working on a book on walter cronkite. i'm interviewing people from roger mudd, les moonves, bob woodward. i member to my book out in the spring of 2012 -- i am bringing my book out in the spring of 2012. host: first call, lee and connecticut. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: when are we going to learn the truth about the start of world war ii? roosevelt wanted to be a war hero like his cousin teddy, and he knew about the bombing of pearl harbor at least two weeks

in advance, but he was pushing us to get into a war. also, with all the communists you had in his government, we abandoned our troops in the philippines and sent all the aid to the russians. why did we do that? host: all right, thank you, lee. doug brinkley. guest: here on memorial day weekend, we want to thank franklin roosevelt for the extraordinary job he did as commander-in-chief, picking people like george marshall to dwight eisenhower, bradley, patton, this incredible group of leaders that he surrounded himself -- military leaders he surrounded himself by. the caller is dealing in the back door to more theory, debunked by -- back door to war era, did not by scholars.

this wacky notion that -- debunked by scholars. this wacky notion that roosevelt, who love our navy is a much, allowed it to be destroyed to bring the country to war. it is similar to the obama birth certificate or things that come out of jfk's assassination. there was missives, intelligence missives, saying that there was unusual japanese behavior going on. people don't realize that the president gets all sorts of information every day, and history is so much in retrospect that you say, "why did you notice this, why didn't you notice that?" that does not mean we do not debate the issue of how we got into war, to say that roosevelt was some kind of a scoundrel that allowed at the armada to be bombed in pearl harbor is kind of reprehensible.

host: what happened on september was the and onwhat interim period like and what was the attitude of the american people? guest: there was a lot of isolationist sentiment. famously, charles lindbergh and henry ford were opposed to intervention. there was this sense we got hoodwinked into world war i and now we were getting into another dirty european civil war. roosevelt was constantly doing what every one trying to help our l.a. great britain out -- there was a series of events that occurred, but go back and read the great freedom speech of franklin roosevelt, or the atlantic charter agreement between churchill and roosevelt up in newfoundland -- he said the cornerstone of the alliance is giving aid to britain at the right time. there is a whole group of the

events that occurred leading up to pearl harbor. we did have an understanding of just how evil the third reich in germany was, and how dangerous japan's militarism had become. by the time pearl harbor came around, roosevelt and the country were ready to act. but roosevelt had to educate the public to get ready for the big board. host: september 1, 1939, is the day that nazi germany invaded poland. william i. ohio. good morning, william. william, you with us? caller: can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: ok, i visited about five years ago the memorial. beautiful. it is all inspiring. -- awe inspiring. i am sad come in a way, that many of the fellows i would like to have all of them visit, but

they are gone. their lives are gone, finished. i will be 87 in october. the thing about the memorial is it took so long to get it builtit but -- get it built, but that is the way things go. i was in the norman invasion, first wave. ipad capt., navy capt. it -- i had a captain, navy captain, that was on board. i was 19 at the time, and i suppose that is why they figured you want somebody real young. i got up on the bridge, and the captain asked me if i would stand on that little platform attached to the bridge. i had an eye view of the whole thing. i saw them all lined up, i saw

all the different types of landing craft lineup, a first wave, and we went in on omaha beach. that changed my whole life, that one day in my life still imprinted. i can see it right now, the beach, probably like a football field to get to the hill. we had these two ramps, one on each side, and they told these ramps on. and the infantry, we had about 130 on board, and they ran on the beach. maybe half of them did not make it. it was a terrible sight. anyway, on that beach, it took quite a while, all morning -- in

fact, we worried we might even get pushed off, because they cannot go forward. but they finally broke through to my left way down on the beach, and tthey got up to the top, and the boys were able to move on up. by late afternoon, things were pretty well, as far as the beach was concern, under control. so the view i see right now -- i am watching the tv, and i viewed it, and it is a beautiful sight, actually, memorable point. host: william, we thank you very much for calling in and sharing your story with us. that's your dog brinkley has -- let's hear what doug brinkley has -- guest: i also want to thank you for your service, and it is

important that you record your memories, to get it down and have something specific about normandy. the actual idea for this memorial came from somebody from your state, ohio, a man named roger bergeron, who had been a veteran at the battle of the bulge, and as i mentioned earlier, the iwo jima memorial, as wonderful as it was, was the marines memorial. what about other people who served in uniform during the second world war? with a congressperson from ohio, italy started -- it really started. one thing led to another, and we have a lot of different people at different times. tom hanks got very involved after "saving private ryan" to bring the public consciousness to the need for this. it has always been a bit of a struggle, and this wonderful

area behind us is a reflecting pool, which is getting the revamping. i think in time for the martin luther king memorial which will be coming up, but also, 2013, august, will be 50 years of martin luther king's famous "i have a dream" moment. host: that is the world war ii memorial and a lincoln monument. guest: and there was concern that you were taking up space, cluttering up the mall. nobody says that anymore, because you come here and see the capitol, the monument, and wonderful fountain system here surrounding it. there is an incredible waterworks operation going on in order to get this incredibly wonderful reflecting place. to spend any time here with these school kids and think about the fact that world war is quite moving, and its roots are back in ohio, a jerusalem county, ohio, where mr. durbin

is from. host: about 2 million a world war ii vets still survive. the veterans administration predicts that in 2015, 85,000 vets will survive, and 2025, only 20,000 vets will still be alive. our next call is from a vet, frank in washington state br. caller: hi. host: please go ahead, sir. caller: i am 86 years old. i was on about five different islands, went in on the invasion. i was on a seaplane basin. i came back stateside a couple of years later.

i got to get an address to a friend. he got to ride back to see the memorial, and i got a friend out and maybe if i could get a chance to do that, i would sure love to come back and see that. host: all right, thank you, frank. do you know anything about this a free ride? guest: i don't know about the free ride. this weekend, rolling thunder is coming, vietnam war vets using this to celebrate memorial day weekend. i want to emphasize that when we started this idea of this memorial, one of the other concerns was that we were losing about 1100 world war ii veterans a week. people were dying off on a regular basis. the idea was that there needed -- we needed to capture the voices of people like -- people like tom brokaw with "the greatest generation" and stephen

ambrose with the book on d-day. there was this idea of people, like the people calling in today, and make sure you get your reminiscence recorded at a local library or something. it is like imagining we get that tape recordings of people at gettysburg -- we could have that tape recordings of people at gettysburg. people are dying off in that generation, in their 80s and 90s now, and at this point we are looking at will war ii -- world war ii veterans as survivors of that generation. host: that caller talked about his experience in the pacific theater. it seems in many ways that your it seems to get a block of the press. -- europe seems to get the bulk of the price. guest: fdr's first objective was to win europe. only in recent years has it wore

a scholarship caught up -- war scholarship caught up, not the least being that we are a western civilization, judeo- christian society. many americans had a background of dutch ancestry, or german or english. there was a priority to win the war in europe. it has an apartment in the past years, including this past year -- has been heartening in the past years, including this past the pacific." there have been novels like norman mailer's "the naked and sehe dead," vonnegut' "slaughterhouse," "from here to eternity."

i mentioned elie weisel. some of these memoirs and novels are as powerful as any history someone like myself could write. the problem with what war ii is that it is losing some of the trauma. -- the drama. interpreting the second world war is a challenge, because it is so all encompassing. this memorial tries to do it in a fitting way that brings everybody in and it has been very successful in its inclusiveness. host: this is "washington journal" on c-span and we are live at the world war ii memorial. dr. brinkley, well-known historian, is joining us for this hour. our next call is from robin in oregon. caller: my question is about the merchant marines. are they included in the

memorial? can you give us back out on in them? thank you. guest: merchant marines, yes. anybody who served in the war efforts -- again, it is not just for soldiers. a memorial is for a generation that came together. it is not able, when you are seeing a look around, to give any kind of historical depth to the role of the merchant marines in the world war, but it is reflected on here. if you have a member of your family who was one of the merchant marines and he wanted to, to bring your grandchildren or friends to think about it, this would be reflective place, a place of prayer. you are not going to get world war ii history by coming to walk around this memorial. you are coming to pause imminent and contemplate the sacrifice of everybody in the second world war -- pause a minute and

contemplate the sacrifice of everybody in the second world war. host: next to this flag is ua pow/mia flag. guest: everything is mentioned on that particular part of the memorial. host: they came to liberate, not to conquer. where does that come from? guest: it is the famous saying of world war ii, when " we are liberators, not conquerors." it was the thrust of what eisenhower and pac-10 and marshall believed, that it was important -- and patton and marshall believe, that it was important to believe that we will liberating europe, liberating japan. the united states has had an influence in japan and germany. we demilitarized those countries. if you go, you see american

bases all over. we did not conquer, but we did it demilitarizing japan and germany after world war ii. host: the commander in the pacific was -- guest: you mean -- host: who was our supreme commander ? guest: to eisenhower was the supreme commander for our allied forces. host: next call for dr. brinkley, william, a veteran -- doug brinkley, william, a veteran. caller: i served in world war ii. my story is much different than what i am hearing. i have a copy of the history of might unit -- my unit. but it does not tell the story that i know. i live it every day, and the

outfit that i went to, i never hear on holidays, but other units within the series before and after i hear. the outfit that i was with when i got there, the first thing i heard was that the outfit was going to be in new guinea five years after the war. i don't know if i should go along with the rest of it, but also i have been hearing good stories, but being a person of color in those days, you had two armies.

one, you did not get on -- host: william, if you could, please turn down of the volume of new tv and very quickly tell us where you served in world war ii, ok? caller: yes, sir. i left under the bridge and there was a submarine that was ahead. i don't know whether he went with us are not -- or not. but we bypassed and went to the canal, and i landed in the army day. this outfit was the first american unit. from the bay to another bay,

and to -- host: you know what, william, we will have to leave it there. we appreciate you calling in. doug brinkley. guest: a couple comments. we tried to do at the memorial is remind people of everybody's service. there were african-american units in the world war and we -- only now people now beginning to understand their service. medgar evers, who went into the civil rights uni -- movement. in worldamericans' role war ii is starting to get scholarly attention and it is long overdue.

host: were african-americans in combat -- guest: very much in combat. we are talking v for victory. they had to come back after fighting, say, germany, and come back to alabama and south carolina and a face the jim crow system. one of the great things and dwight eisenhower did during world war ii -- he said, look, we are all americans. there was a lot of racism in the american military in the second world war, but there were also a lot of courageous people within the military saying no more. you would be amazed at how many african-american service men and women in the world war fought with the civil-rights movement. host: every one of the veterans

all in this morning recounted his experience in detail. guest: the reason i mention these oral histories -- there is the sameying, the fog of war. it is impossible to have one version of world war ii. it is possible to have millions of russians, because there was some much -- happening. -- millions of a version, because there was so much happening. we just lost the last a veteran of the second world war and then that will be distant history. collecting primary source material from people like a few of our callers. host: it is about 90 degrees out here and doug brinkley is doing yeoman's service for us on c- span. jim in ohio. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my dad was a world war ii navy

vet and served in the pacific. i am a vietnam vet. i have not got back to see the memorial is yet. my father passed away bomb before it was billed. but my question is -- my father passed away long before it was built. but my question is, on the columns, the transcript of fdr's december 8 speech he gave before congress is on there, and it was edited -- the last four words have been added off of the speech. is that correct? guest: it is not on that column behind me. most of the engravings are very truncated in very short-term -- very short to go around, but the point you raised has been made by some people, that they thought there should have been an extra line. i am not a designer of the memorial, so i don't know why that happened, but it did.

host: we do want to point out this book, though, dug up brinkley, the author -- >doug brinkley, the author. very much a coffee table book, hundreds of the photographs, etc. guest: we work on this with john eisenhower, and he is the son of and white eisenhower. then, of course, we had incredible contributions from some of our best historians. host: how many books have you written altogether? guest: i don't count them anymore. the one i am working on right now, cronkite -- he is a typical example of a journalist in world war ii, there for the battle of the bulge, therefore normandy -- there for normandy, there for the nuremberg trials. a good friend of his was killed

in the second world war just trying to cover the story there. host: next call for doug brinkley, tom in north carolina. caller: i was in the pacific, 32nd infantry division. i went all the way up to quite a few lennings in new guinea. i think six. some were d1, some d2 and 3. i was also down in the philippines, manila, when the war ended. yet, but i was in manila. i cannot recall where the hell i was, but i was over there for three years, and we did not have

any phone calls to call home. we had v-day letters, so we did not have it very easy. thank you very much. host: thank you for sharing your experience. guest: i find that the letters some of the most moving documents. and your caller -- thank you for your service -- talks about communication being tough. there is a saying, historians read other people's mail. i read some stories from the second world war. each person before the d-day mission basically wrote a death note home -- "fix the barn" -- because they were basically being sent on a suicide mission, and yet you cannot tell anybody what emthe mission was

because it would give away the plan. if anybody has letters at home from -- if you are a veteran or a member of a family that has them in a shoebox of something, look to the smithsonian institute or world war ii to donate them. we are constantly trying to make sure those letters are not turnout. hos -- not thrown out. host: jack in new jersey. caller: good morning. let me know when i am to talk. host: jack, you are on the air and we are listening to you. caller: i was in the u.s. merchant marine in world war ii. i know we got a raw deal. we were not recognized as veterans until 1988. i might say that our casualty

rate was higher than any service. over 10,000 of our men got killed. i have had decorations -- gorbachev was in, and medvedev of russia awarded us. we made a very dangerous runs towards the black sea, romania, supplying soviet services and military. if it wasn't for us, i don't think we would and have one of the war, because the soviet union played a big part in it also. we got a raw deal -- white, one more thing. we have two bills in the house and senate, to get just compensation.

we were denied gi bill of rights. our lives may have been changed if we did get some benefits now, those two bills -- if we did get some benefits. those two bills are right now in congress and we hope the people of the united states call their congressmen and senators to support the bill. host: thank you for calling in. guest: the caller is absolutely correct. the merchant marines did get a bit of a raw deal. they were not in the gi bill, and they should have been. i want to restress that this memorial day, we of not forgotten the merchant marines. i believe it began in it 17 70's, the founding of our country, and it is included with the marines and army and navy, on and on. the merchant marines are represented here.

i agree with the color that they have been short shrifted in history, and a lot of scholars have overlooked how risky it was. they were an extraordinarily important group in our victory, particularly in europe. host: jack mentioned the soviet union that the russians lost 20 million people. guest: isn't underplayed a story in the united states, how -- it is an under played story in the united states, how important the russian role was. joe stalin, one of the thugs of history, was at one point "time's" man of the year. oliver stone has an upcoming history of what was going on during the war.

a lot of scholars don't focus on the role russia play in supporting the advance. -- thwarting the advance. do you know how many japanese were killed? guest: if i get something off, i will get emails. with the hiroshima and nagasaki, and the killing of civilians, should those civilians in considered wartime casualties areor not? it becomes a controversial subject. the fact of the matter is a man a-et who drop one of the bombs -- he is living in ohio, and meeting him was interesting, because this man who had a role of dropping the bomb on hiroshima was just shopping and grocery stores and nobody knew. that is something about the

world war ii generation, that a lot of these great heroes are a round us all the time. i talked to a lot of veterans who said that in the 1950's and 1960's, they were booed and hissed. by the 1980's, people were cheering them. our country has done a great turnaround in honoring these minimum of the second world war. this is kind of the main place that helped with the turnaround. host: on memorial day weekend, we are live at the national war ii morrow, opened in 2004 to the public -- the national world war ii memorial, opened in 2004 to the public. you are on with his s andtor -- historian doug brinkley. caller: let me say that your objective the and frankness make you an american icon, cultural

hero. i have a hard question and an easy question. i am pro-military, but when they dropped the bomb, were there any apprehensions or regrets after a, just based on the fact that citizens were killed? my last, easy question, how does it feel being in houston? i only said that because i used to be there and i walked through rice university all the time and i loved it. i will take that answer off the air and thank you for listening. guest: i do teach at rice and i teach classes on dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. students are very divided. the pro-truman view, and he said he did not lose any sleep, that he saved american lives, and he would have had to invade japan and that his view that anything at his disposal to win the war was essential. remember, russia, the soviet union, was starting to be seen

as an enemy, and they were moving in joining us in japan . critics of hiroshima-nagasaki say, why did you drop it on -- didn't you drop it on a fly speck island in the pacific and tell the japanese to watch it? they would have seen the mushroom cloud. there are some people who say that hiroshima was okay but nagasaki wasn't. this is hotly debated, as well it should be. keep in mind, though, the only time the united states had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, any country who had a monopoly, the west 45 -- the u.s. had from 1935-1949. then at -- 1945-1949. then the soviet union added and the cold war was on full blast.

host: what was the darkest part of the 1945-1949 period? guest: there are many. when the soldiers started realizing what happened at buchenwald at auschwitz and the frustration that we could not have done something sooner. to be talking about the bottom rung of evil, when you talked about what was going on at auschwitz, using human skin as lampshades, biological experiments, just massive murder and genocide. on one hand, we felt so good, we won, we beat germany and japan. to realize that humanity to be so ghastly and evil, just how we dicked the nazi regime was, as i say, if you ever visit those

cans, you recognize that it teaches you -- those camps, you recognize that it teaches you just how essential the war was b. anybody who says we should not have been involved in the world war does not know what they're talking about. eisenhower wrote a letter taking full responsibility -- it could have leaked out, the great armada, the allied invasion. things could have gone terribly wrong. it is easy now to say, what a great american, british, canadian,, but the truth of the matter was, we didn't know. that was the turning point, because it stars the liberation, the battle of normandy, of europe. we had to go to the battle -- and was a larger march to berlin. used -- the battle of the polls, and it was a larger march to -- battle of the bulge, and it was

eight longer march to berlin. and that we were able to successfully test an atomic weapon in new mexico and dropped over hiroshima. it was clear that american technology and the industrial mobilization that won the war. it is important to stress here that we are honoring not just the soldiers and fallen heroes, but the american people, because people were working 12 hours a day making, manufacturing, working on assembly lines in detroit or chicago, our heroes, too. we had to have the home front effort to win the second world war. host: about 10 minutes left in "washington journal" this morning. matt in wisconsin. caller: good morning. hello? host: please go ahead.

caller: i am talking as hard as i can. host: sir, i apologize. we are having a little trouble hearing you. we are going to move on to texas. charles in texas, you are on the air. caller: what you want me to say? i can tell you a lot. i was in hiroshima 30 days after the bomb, i was on my way to japan. we were not killed. god bless harry truman, and to hell with the rest of the world. host: 30 days after the bomb. guest: were you worried at all about radiation? caller: there was nothing standing but a few little brick

pieces -- [unintelligible] guest: were you worried about your health? caller: that is just a bunch of baloney -- guest: i was just wondering, one of the things that interested -- again, thank you for your service -- to see if the soldiers who went into the stands had any negative of the tax from radiation from going into nagasaki, a horsham, in the first wave after the bomb went off -- nagasaki, hiroshima, in the first right after the bomb went off. anyway, thank you it must've been a powerful thing to walk into that city and see what the power of the atom unleashed. host: do you know how many pow's were held by the japanese and

the germans? guest: well, again, i don't want to give a wrong figure, but the book "slaughterhouse five" by kurt vonnegut, who was in dresden -- dresden just got wiped out. go in withjob was to a will bear out and take all the -- wheelbarrow and take all the bodies and build a mass graves with them. it ruined his life. he was haunted his whole life by seeing that amount of carnage. host: next call for doug brinkley is with fred in texas. caller: thank you, c-span, for great program, and mr. brinkley, you are a very knowledgeable inarticulate historian. -- and particu -- and

articulate historian. i remember as a youth following veterans to the local cemetery, where there were speeches and gun salutes. i knew as a teenager that these men had given their lives unselfishly for democracy, and it is important that we remember that. my neighbor is an 87-year-old veteran, who was a goner for 36 missions over germany. -- gunner for 36 missions over germany could it took me awhile to get him to sit over coffee and relate his experiences, because they are true heroes and they don't talk about it. but to do missions at night over germany, watching some of the other planes go down -- these are true heroes, and we should

always remember that they fought for our freedom and democracy. it is important that this memorial be a tribute to them. thank you very much. guest: that was beautifully said, and really, what this is is about a saving of our democracy. i was listening to some of the broadcasts of edward r. murrow with the cbs news, and he used to go on some of these planes at would broadcast while on a bombing mission, actually, or standing on a rooftop in london during the blitz. bringing that drama on to the radios -- people would listen to eric sevareid, murrow, and you listen to that and you realize how lucky we were in the united states that people pulled

together. if it had not been for the moving of the assembly lines, the model t, radio and television -- we just developed that in the 1940's -- the world had never seen a center like the united states for engineering and technological innovation. you took that, and what our caller just said, the selflessness of the so many americans wanted to protect their way of life, and the combination of it is the defining moment of recent history, the way the united states pulled together as a country and put everything they had into defeating the truly evil forms of government, the nazi third reich and the japanese warlords. we can argue the nuances of the second world war, but there is no arguing that the marci is the best form of government, and

defeating -- that democracy is the best form of government, and defeating fascism in the second world war was an extraordinary achievement. in this book, a great mural painter was in cincinnati and got the word of pearl harbor, and quit his tour, went back to kansas city, did a whole series of paintings of the horros ors the japanese military and rallied poets like archibald macleish, robert frost, people from every walk of life, it didn't matter. can-doism of the second world war was remarkable, and our country had that for a while. even after the war, with the marshall plan, the berlin blockade, the building of nato,

eisenhower with the interstate highway system, kennedy -- we are at the 50th anniversary of the kennedy moon speech. we feel today, standing here, that our country has lost some of its can-doism, become a polarize the nation instead of working on big things together. why this memorial reminds you is that it is not republican, democrat, liberal or conservative, is american. when you come here, you go to a cathedral where you are saying a prayer off remembrances for every american, not dividing them by race or nationality or political affiliation. host: in 1971, decoration day was a three-day holiday. -- was established as a three-day holiday. you are on the air with

historian doug brinkley. caller: 101st cavalry reconnaissance group. it is a long story. we had a tough time, but the war was supposed to have been over, and yet they had refused to surrender. we found ourselves, the 101st cavalry reconnaissance -- we were billetted on one side of the street, and on the other side of the street was the ss and three ss generals who were negotiating with the general, and our outstanding commanding officers -- col mclellan at west

point. they finally agreed and signed, at the officer came up to me and said, "george, you are the only guy. you have got to cook a meal for these guys." i replied to the captain, "over these mountains are my grandparents, dying of hunger." "george, you have got to do this." so i cook a nice meal, and i presented it, and i stood in front of the three germans -- they were good soldiers. there were on the wrong side, but there were admirable soldiers. host: george, thank you, we are almost out of time it again, the detail we are getting in his story 60 years later. guest: well, that is why i keep going back to saying that world

history -- keep in mind that when we are looking at the history at where we are at today, this was paid for by the taxpayers, it was bipartisan. two former senators, bob dole, republican of kansas, george mcgovern, it democrat of south dakota, both alive, but world war ii vets, stepped up and started lobbying for this. ed under bush but a lot of the energy for this started under the clinton years in the 1990's. getting to the spirit of what this memorial is about here, thanking the people who came before us for their service to our country. we do not want to forget the cost of our freedom. host: in the years since world war ii, had there been meetings japanese soldiers and german soldiers and american soldiers?

guest: yes, it has been happening more and more. there is a friend of mine who is stars in onwon bronze vietnam, and he is taking people island-hopping to a lot of people are engaging with the japanese on what happened in those battles. it was a little slow in the pacific theater. the european situation has been dealt with for decades, but it is only in the past few years that we are dealing with the pacific and the united states. host: we are so pleased to have doug brinkley here at the world war ii memorial. thank you for being with us. part of the national park >> robert gates gives the

commencement address at the naval academy. then, french president sarkozy on the g8 summit. >> defense secretary robert gates gives his last commencement address at the u.s. naval academy graduation ceremony. he told the graduates of what is required to be a good leader and describe how tough it is to send young soldiers into harm's way. he is retiring on june 30. this is about 20 minutes. it is a special honor to join

you today for this long- anticipated and well-deserved celebration. i first want to welcome and thank the family members who are here today. your support and encouragement have made this day possible for these young men and women. more importantly, you have nourished their spirits and molded their character. you have instilled in them love of country and a willingness to serve. and now you entrust to the nation your most treasured possession. thanks also to the sponsor families of midshipmen. over the past four years, you have opened your homes to these young men and women, providing a good meal or a respite from academy life. or a shoulder to lean on. your guidance and your caring helped make today possible for your mids. congratulations! as the first order of business, i will exercise my authority as

u.s. secretary of defense to grant amnesty to all midshipmen whose antics led to minor conduct offenses. [applause] as always, vice admiral miller has the final say on what constitutes "minor." [laughter] today's speech represents my final commencement speech as defense secretary, culminating a month of five commencement addresses, the most recent being last sunday at notre dame. from my brief time there i can report to you that the notre dame student body is moving through grief to denial to anger over the pounding navy football delivered to them last october.

[applause] on a related note, whenever ricky dobbs finally throws his hat in the ring for president of the united states, he'll have my endorsement. [laughter] i would like to start by thanking each of today's graduates for choosing to serve your country and your fellow citizens. in everything you did here from studying for exams to training sessions with your upperclassmen you have grown together as a team. but there has also been something bigger uniting you: your willingness to take on a difficult and dangerous path in the service of others. i made my first academy commencement address here in annapolis in may 2007. a short time later you arrived here to begin a remarkable educational experience, an experience that concludes today. all of you made the decision to

enter this academy and active military service during the toughest stretch of the iraq war you reported here when casualties were at their highest and prospects of success uncertain at best. at the same time, the taliban were making their comeback in afghanistan, and history's most notorious terrorist was still at large. as a result of the skill and sacrifice of countless young warriors and patriots many of them graduates of this institution i am proud to say that we face a different set of circumstances today. iraq has a real chance at a peaceful and democratic future. in afghanistan, the taliban momentum has been halted and reversed, and osama bin laden is finally where he belongs. [applause]

while many people witness history, those who step forward to serve in a time of crisis have a place in history. as of today, you join the long line of patriots in a noble calling. by your service you will have a chance to leave your mark on history. almost 100 years ago, president theodore roosevelt delivered an extraordinary speech called "citizenship in a republic." he observed: "in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty. the average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed." roosevelt then went on to say, "the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher."

the graduates of this institution are not average citizens and so you can never be content to be merely "good citizens." you must be great citizens. in everything you do, you must always make sure that you live up to the highest personal and professional standards of duty, service, and honor the values of the navy, the values of the u.s. armed forces, the values of the best traditions of our country. indeed, when you are called to lead, when you are called to stand in defense of your country in faraway lands, you must hold your values and your honor close to your heart. forty-six years ago this month, i graduated from college also having committed to public service. in the decades since in the air force, at cia, in the white house, and now at the pentagon i served under eight presidents and had the opportunity to observe many other great leaders along the way.

from this experience i have learned that real leadership is a rare and precious commodity, and requires qualities that many people might possess piecemeal to varying degrees, but few exhibit in total. as you start your careers as leaders today, i would like to offer some brief thoughts on those qualities. for starters, great leaders must have vision the ability to get your eyes off your shoelaces at every level of rank and responsibility, and see beyond the day-to-day tasks and problems. to be able to look beyond tomorrow and discern a world of possibilities and potential. how do you take any outfit to a higher level of excellence? you must see what others do not or cannot, and then be prepared to act on your vision. an additional quality necessary for leadership is deep conviction.

true leadership is a fire in the mind that transforms all who feel its warmth, that transfixes all who see its shining light in the eyes of a man or woman. it is a strength of purpose and belief in a cause that reaches out to others, touches their hearts, and makes them eager to follow. self-confidence is still another quality of leadership. not the chest-thumping, strutting egotism we see and read about all the time. rather, it is the quiet self- assurance that allows a leader to give others both real responsibility and real credit for success. the ability to stand in the shadow and let others receive attention and accolades. a leader is able to make decisions but then delegate and trust others to make things happen. this doesn't mean turning your back after making a decision and hoping for the best. it does mean trusting in people at the same time you hold them accountable.

the bottom line -- a self- confident leader doesn't cast such a large shadow that no one else can grow. a further quality of leadership is courage, not just the physical courage of the seas, of the skies and of the trenches, but moral courage. the courage to chart a new course, the courage to do what is right and not just what is popular, the courage to stand alone, the courage to act, the courage as a military officer to "speak truth to power." in most academic curricula today, and in most business, government, and military training programs, there is great emphasis on team-building, on working together, on building consensus, on group dynamics. you have learned a lot about that. but, for everyone who would become a leader, the time will inevitably come when you must stand alone. when alone you must say, "this

is wrong" or "i disagree with all of you and, because i have the responsibility, this is what we will do." don't kid yourself that takes real courage. another essential quality of leadership is integrity. without this, real leadership is not possible. nowadays, it seems like integrity or honor or character is kind of quaint, a curious, old-fashioned notion. we read of too many successful and intelligent people in and out of government who succumb to the easy wrong rather than the hard right whether from inattention or a sense of entitlement, the notion that rules are not for them. but for a real leader, personal virtues self-reliance, self control, honor, truthfulness, morality are absolute.

these are the building blocks of character, of integrity and only on that foundation can real leadership be built. a final quality of real leadership, i believe, is simply common decency, treating those around you and, above all, your subordinates with fairness and respect. an acid test of leadership is how you treat those you outrank, or as president truman once said, "how you treat those who can't talk back." whatever your military specialty might be, use your authority over others for constructive purposes, to help them to watch out and care for them and their families, to help them improve their skills and advance, to ease their hardships whenever possible. all of this can be done without compromising discipline or mission or authority. common decency builds respect

and, in a democratic society, respect is what prompts people to give their all for a leader, even at great personal sacrifice. i hope you will keep these thoughts with you as you advance in your careers. above all, remember that the true measure of leadership is not how you react in times of peace or times without peril. the true measure of leadership is how you react when the wind leaves your sails, when the tide turns against you. just to get accepted to the naval academy, most of you have probably succeeded in many cases brilliantly at pretty much everything you've done in the classroom, on the playing field, or in other activities. i know this institution has challenged you in new ways. but from here on out it just gets harder. the risk of failure or setbacks will only grow as your responsibilities grow, and with them the consequences of your decisions. so know this.

at some point along your path, you will surely encounter failure or disappointment of one kind or another. nearly all of us have. if at those times you hold true to your standards, then you will always succeed, if only in knowing you stayed true and honorable. in the final analysis, what really matters are not the failures and disappointments themselves, but how you respond. about 40 years ago, a young ensign ran his gasoline tanker into a buoy, fouling the propeller in the process typically a career killer. i work with that same naval officer every day. he is now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen. to be able to respond to setbacks with perseverance and determination should apply as well to the military institutions you lead.

i will never forget the night of april 24th, 1980. i was executive assistant to the cia director at the time, and was in the white house during the secret mission to rescue american hostages in iran. i had been in on the planning from the beginning and, while the operation was clearly risky, i honestly believed it would work. it did not. soon, images of burnt helicopters and the charred remains of u.s. servicemen splashed around the world. it was truly a low ebb for our nation and for a military that was still recovering from vietnam. but then the special operations community, and the u.s. military as a whole, pulled itself together, reformed the way it was trained and organized, took on the corrosive service parochialism that had hobbled our military institutionally and operationally. and so, just under a month ago, i once again spent a nerve- wracking afternoon in the white house as a risky special

operations mission was underway. when word of a downed helicopter came back my heart sank, remembering that awful night thirty years ago. but this time, of course, there was a very different result. a mass murderer was brought to a fitting end. a world in awe of america's military prowess. a country relieved that justice was done and, frankly, that their government could do something hard and do it right. and a powerful blow struck on behalf of democratic civilization against its most lethal and determined enemies. [applause] i want each of you to take that lesson of adaptability, of responding to setbacks by improving yourself and your institution, and that example of success, with you as you go forward into the navy and the marine corps you will someday lead.

the qualities of leadership i have described this morning do not suddenly emerge fully developed overnight or as a revelation after you have assumed important responsibilities. these qualities have their roots in the small decisions you have made here at the academy and will make early in your career and must be strengthened all along the way to allow you to resist the temptation of self before service. as i mentioned earlier, this is my last address to america's service academies, my last opportunity to engage the future leaders of our military as your defense secretary. as i look out upon you this morning, i am reminded of what so struck and moved me when i went from being a university president to u.s. secretary of defense in a time of war. at texas a&m i would walk the campus, and i would see thousands of students aged 18 to 25, typically wearing t- shirts and shorts and backpacks.

the day after i became secretary of defense, in december 2006, i made my first visit to the war theater. and there i encountered other young men and women also 18 to 25. except they were wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles, putting their lives at risk for all americans. and i knew that some of them would not make it home whole, and that some would not make it home at all. i knew then that soon all those in harm's way would be there because i sent them. ever since, i have come to work every day, with a sense of personal responsibility for each and every young american in uniform as if you were my own sons and daughters.

my only prayer is that you serve with honor and come home safely. i personally thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service. serving and leading you has been the greatest honor of my life, may you have fair winds and following seas. congratulations. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> nicolas sarkozy on the g8

summit, next. the legacy of world war 2. -- world war ii. >> tomorrow, a political roundtable on the 2012 election. who should be the next head of the international monetary fund? we have an update on the state of the u.s. housing market. "washington journal" live at 7:00 on c-span. >> people say to me, how much time do spend writing? how much time do you spend doing research? great questions. no one ever says, how much of your time do you spent thinking? that is the most important part

of it. >> sunday, his writing process and latest. you can also download this online at c-span.org. >> french president sarkozy said g8 members are committed to providing billions of dollars of aid to new democracies in the arab world. no details were announced. during the 40-minute news conference, the french president answered questions about military intervention in libya and the u.s. criminal investigation into the french, former imf chief dominique strauss-kahn. this is 45 minutes. >> you have the text of the final communique, the best way

is for me to answer your questions, which will avoid meat repeating what the communique already says. >> good afternoon, mr. president. gaddafi it refuses to leave. so what? >> we will step things up militarily in order to protect the civilian population. there is a wide ranging -- the specifics regarding mr. gaddafi are very clear and has been endorsed by all the members of the g8, including russia.

furthermore, all our african partners have shown tremendous solidarity with respect to libya. mr. gaddafi has his own fate in his own hands. if the leaves, and he will avoid much suffering for his people. if he digs his heels in, he will have to pay the consequences himself. >> the final communique refers to 20 billion. >> i can give you the actual figures. it is $20 billion. from the multi and lateral

banks. i do not include the imf. we thought it would be more transparent not to involve the imf in the best figure. the imf is prepared to make loans to egypt. so we did not include that. you must i'd roughly $10 billion of bilateral commitments that we have not mentioned and the communique. speaking for france, that will represent 1 billion it euros great -- 1 billion euros great talent billion dollars of contributions from the states which we will put into a trust fund specifically dedicated to

these two countries great if you total all back up, it amounts to $40 billion. multilateral banks, bilateral commitments, and gulf states. >> after your talks with president medvedev and president obama, with respect to the resolution on syria, the position on syria, the think that this resolution will be passed? the more debt -- more demonstrators have been killed and syria recently. they ask you about the question

about the conference before the end of june? do you have the sense that after your talks with president obama, that president obama has excepted the principle of a conference? the peace process can be relaunched? as of yesterday, the system which in -- the situation in syria is unacceptable. the terms, the language we have used and the g8 communique is unambiguous, condemned totally the attitude and the actions taken by the syrian authority's. our russian friends have validated that and endorsed that. who could have imagines that what was possible to write the

g8 might lead to a different position within the united nations? of course not. as for the peace process, this morning, we spent a lot of time discussing that. we believe that the palestinian reconciliation is good news. we believed that there is an opportunity to unlock the situation and above all, there is a sense of urgency because the arab resolution and result and democracy has given piece an opportunity because the very characteristic of democracy is that they do not go to war on one another we want to persuade our israel defense that they need not worry.

quite the contrary. it will enable-energy that was being mobilized against dictatorship to be channeled into positive and we agreed with our american was a sense there of urgency. the urgency rises from the fact that we're talking today and we have the u.n. general assembly coming up in september. so we can have differences of opinion as to whether the urgency is june or july, but as you know, my foreign secretary is going to the middle east next thursday and we will be in a position to take stock more precisely at that point upon his return and he will be in washington and we have agreed

with our american friends that we will be working very closely. france cannot agree to this conflict continuing endlessly. we know perfectly well what the parameters of peace are and they were recalled lucidly, boldly, courageously, recently by president obama in a recent speech. there has to be a minimum of goodwill on the part of all the parties to build peace. france is prepared to take initiatives to try to get the process rolling or rolling again. suggestions will be put on the table and you will find them in the g-8 communique. subsaharan africa's voice is represented but is it heard economically and politically? >> what is clear we wanted the

g-8 not simply to listen to the voice of africa, but i would go further than that in saying this the first time i believe there is a common declaration on the part of the g-8 and africa on such considerably important issues. durbin conference where france wants to prepare for the post-kyoto era but should not lead to a reduction, a draw-down in commitments, but that we commit to reducing greenhouse gases, that we uphold our commitments with respect to protecting our planet. that's got to be discussed. then there's the matter of the doha round, the way we organize the world trait organization, whatever it does. whatever the prospects of

success for doha, we do not wish the poorest countries to be taken hostage and caught between the rock and the hard place, in other words, the disagreements between the rich countries and emerging economies so we're thinking about how to protect world's poorest countries and there's the issue of how to build the infrastructures that africa needs which will be the focus of a specific chapter, an important chapter of the g-20 meeting in cannes and i was delighted to hear he was in another financing mechanism and he would make a proposal along these lines and sphrans prepared to make a strong commitment and implement with a group of countries and it was moving to have three african

states who have had recent democratic elections, coat dev war, and guinea, come and attend this meeting. clearly, our african friends have understood we would give priority, assistance and help to those who fight corruption and try and support democracy. that is the new basis of our cooperation with africa, be it in the north, from the north, yes? >> bloomberg news, mr. president, a question on europe and greece. the restructuring of the greek debt, would it very bad for europe, must it be avoided at all costs and is that something you discussed with angela merkel? >> no, this is not something we discussed within the g-8 because it doesn't come within the g-8 remit even though we are obviously partners within the

euro zone. the point we made was that the euro zone is a stable zone where growth has actually picked up quite rapidly. the last .8% the first half of the year where average deficits were lower in other parts of the world. we must be in average at 4.5% of averaga deficit and that the sum paradox, talking about the problems of the euro at a time when the euro is almost unprecedentedly strong. might i draw the attention of one and all to the fact that the euro versus the dollar has 1.50, in other words, way above where it was launched. i cannot remember that a weak

currency is a currency trading at those rates and in fact this is almost a source of problems vis-a-vis our exports. the reason i'm going into the nitty-gritty of the situation in greece, as greece was not here, and our other pashs -- partners within the euro zone were not here, either. we did discuss it. we expressed total endorsement of firm support, unambiguous support for the euro in terms of its credibility and stability. the french, the germans, have long been saying the euro is a nonnegotiable issue because the euro represents europe. it is europe. and anything that might jeopardize the future of the euro would jeopardize the future of europe and therefore of france and germany so everything that

needs to be done will be done when the time comes in partnership with our german friends and at that point i will, of course, explain whatever decisions we need to take and will have taken. >> mr. president, simply to go back to the question put earlier on syria, would you be prepared to send to president bashar al-assad the same message president obama just sent him in his recent speech, either you uphold democracy and support democracy, or you step down. >> could i have said that? yes, but president obama said it and he was right to say it. seems to me that it was already said but if you want to make me say that we follow in the

excellent footsteps of president obama, i have no problem saying that and france is in a strong position to do so because we have done everything we could to bring syria back into the fold of the international community, everything. we talked with them, we discussed with them, we tried to help them, we tried to understand them, in fact, we -- thanks to this new relationship, we were able to make progress in lebanon and unfortunately it saddens me to say that the syrian leadership seems to be backing down and backing off and therefore france is criticizing what needs to be criticized and withdraws its trust. now, and president bashan knew that would be france's position once he backed away from democracy and that is what's happening.

>> sky italia, italy. i wanted to ask you, sir, it would appear that russia is freend -- prepared to mediate over libya. what would be your view it's subject. and in italy, we would be very interested -- i know you don't like to talk about your private life but first of all, knowatulations, and do you if it's a boy or a girl. >> you said you didn't want to talk about my private life, what would it have been if you had wished to talk about my private life. i presume you would have done so in italian. >> i, in turn, congratulate you on being an italian from a country we are so fond of in france. now, on president medvedev, what does mediation mean? there can be no mediation with president qaddafi. qaddafi's troops have to go back

to the barracks and qaddafi has to leave. we can discuss the ways and means in which he leaves, where he goes, which country he goes to, which part of libya he might go to. that can be discussed and as for president medvedev, why not use his persuasive powers for as long as on behalf of russia he agrees to condemn what is going to in libya and in particular what mr. qaddafi is doing. so, yes, we need president medvedev's help. in fact, we so needed it that at the security council, he was the one who enabled it, who made it possible for us to adopt resolution 1793. so his any help he can givous this matter as on any circuit any other is welcome, just as he has been extremely useful with

issues going on with iran. >> i'm going to talk to you about greece which is fascinating because things seem to be getting worse and worse day by day in greece. the i.m.f. tuesday might not be treend -- tuesday might not be prepared to go ahead with the second loan agreement. i want to know if you discussed this with the chancellor because it would appear that the new downgrading is the result of the german position and germany is firmly against the restructuring of the greek debt as opposed to france and the european central bank, and did you discuss with president obama the general concern about the continuing instability of the euro zone? >> no, president obama did not talk to me about his

uncertainties or concerns because he's very familiar with the situation in the united states. one of obama's characteristics is he's a reasonable man. how could he be worried about a zone whose average deficit is 4.5%? that would not make sense. so, secondly, germany is a major country, a major player, and a strategic partner for france. i will say nothing that would in any way hinder cooperation with angela merkel and the german government which is based on trust, confidence, and is indispensable. thirdly, i think the word restructuring is not used in its proper exception. if there is restructuring, it means that a european country is

not in a position to repay its debt, and if that is the case, this is a word france will not use, quite clearly. if the question is, can we think about the way in which private partners, private players might endorse or shoulder part of the burden, it's not restructuring. there are other forms of words and other language, and there is no problem and that is the direction we all need to be heading in. what matters is that we will defend and support and endorse the euro and solidarity within the euro zone. the credibility of european countries is of the essence. we cannot give in on this notion of credibility and we will not give in. >>as to the participation of the

private sector, there are many ways of going about it without in any way undermining this credibility. so, no, i agree with you, france rejects the word "restructuring." shouldn't use and it's not a fact we should contemplate. >> the tunisian prime minister in his press conference talked about the tunisian refugees, saying he did not think the 20,000 refugees arriving in europe is a source of major demographic imbalances in europe. do you consider it's a problem of massive immigration or not? >> well, coming from you, to hear in the same sentence the word risk, danger, and immigration is quite surprising. do you see a danger? i mean, i've never associated those two words, danger and

immigration. i wouldn't have phrased things the way you did, sir, but, anyway, you did, and you're entitled to do so. i have never claimed that we should have zero immigration and i won't start now and i believe south of the mediterranean and the north of the mediterranean have to manage and handle together migratory flows and common interests. immigration has to be thought through by people who have a sense of responsibility and act responsibly, for instance, our tunisian friends want us to train their elites and we will be delighted to do so if only because we will be able to continue maintaining french, other language in tunisia. but it takes 10 years to train a

medical student and meantime you meet people, whether you're a boy or a girl, so the idea is not that all tunisians studying medicine in france stay in or the reverse. all these things need to be discussed. things are moving forward quietly, smoothly. i think we're striking the right balance. there is no tension to my on the subject and i can tell you that the tunisian prime minister wants me to go quite soon at his invitation to othermore, it seems -- furthermore, it seems to me that tunisia is quite sensitive to the fact that the g-8 french presidency invited tunisia and egypt to the g-8. i think that's a strong signal we're sending. >> mr. president, could you say a few words about your

conversations on the possibility of russia in the w.t.o. >> we said that as to the ultimate objective, we were in favor of russia joining the w.t.o. by and large, the partnership between france and russia and russia and europe is getting and is going to continue to get closer and closer in the months and years to come but once russia takes on its share of responsibility for handling some of the major international issues as it is doing, there is absolutely no reason why we should in any way delay the resolution of russia's request to join the w.t.o. and the world of market economies. >> coming back to what you said

yesterday, can you tell us what came out of your discussions with president obama today, what's happening the last two weeks at the i.m.f.? >> i cannot speak for president obama and it is not for me to announce his decision. i believe his decision has been taken and he's waiting for the right opportunity and moment to make an announcement. i think it would have been very ill advised to give the impression that the g-8 countries have agreed on a candidate and have taken no account of what the emerging countries have to say on the subject. meanwhile, i read the excellent statement made by hillary

clinton. i can't imagine she and president obama are not in agreement. >> i'd like to come back to the question, do you believe, sir, that it is useful to talk about the 67 lives and borders when you want to address the issue of settlement in the middle east, in other words, return to the 1967 lines. and secondly, do you not believe that the arab springs and measures that have been taken have somehow swept the iranian the carpet even though you've discussed it at the g-8, do you not regret that? >> i think it's trolvet talk about the 1967 borders and lines. you can't talk about borders and lines without specifying which borders and lines because then it's just hot air and i think what makes president obama's speech so bold, so courageous, is that he referred specifically

to the 1967 lines. likewise, i'm very clear iran is evidently trying to reap the benefits of -- actually, the events in certain arab countries in order to get us to turn a blind eye to its unstopping or its unfaltering eye towards acquiring nuclear weapons and we are going to do what it takes to toughen up sanctions. >> president, the introduction you made at the g-8 summit, you talked about responsible dialogue between the captains of the internet industry and heads of state government. you talked about the sector as fragile and powerful. something else that is fragile and powerful in this world are young people. and i wanted to ask you how you

see the initiative developing and how you see countries such as the arab states and spain finding the place on the international scene, within the international community. >> look, frankly, you cannot compare the youths of tunisia and egypt and young people in spain. i mean, you can only compare like and like. it's one thing to demonstrate in egypt and tunisia which were not democracies, which were aspiring to become so, as to the youth g-8 or e-g8, the i-g-8, i mean. it is the internet big players and corporations that have to make suggestions, not ourselves,

not heads of state and government. therefore, they have to meet every year and consider proposals because they've agreed to endorse this responsibility. i mean, we can suggest, we can moot ideas, get a ball rolling, but it is not up to us to keep it alive, otherwise it will simply be artificial so there has to be an i-g-8 for internet, for youths. we can think of other such g-8's, sportsmen and women, artists or creators. there can be many such ideas and it depends on if there were two to tango. if the i-g-8 simultaneous, the reason the summit was such a success is because the internet endorsed it. it was the french president to put the idea on the table but

it's not our idea as such and i hope every year there will be such a meeting in the future. i mean, i don't want to be constantly pumping air into the chamber of this particular tire or wheel. it is the internet players, the internet users, who have to keep this one going. >> mr. president, let me go back to what was said by a colleague about the i.m.f., what you said to president obama this morning. do you not think that france's image has been very damaged by of mr. dominque strauss-kahn and his present circumstances in the house he's living are particularly shocking

given the circumstances? >> personally, i have refused to adopt a position on this particular issue. you know perfectly well that whatever is said on the subject, i will be criticized. you know this very well. i'm not criticizing you for having put the question to me, but i believe all of this is sufficiently miserable for the whole of the political world to remain dignified in what they say and the stand they adopt because one has mixed feelings, mixed feelings, quite contradictory, that belong to each person's personal sensibility. therefore, i do not feel that as head of state i need to or should adopt a position. there's american justice.

to say that this deeply harms the image of france, i was not aware of the fact that mr. strauss-kahn was representing france. he was representing the i.m.f. when you say -- basically what you're saying is that this has harmed the image of the i.m.f., the deputy director of the i.m.f., deputy president was there, we talked about it and we want to help the i.m.f. and i will stick to this position. i stand back, i'm an observer, i very much hope we can rise above the nitty-gritty about facts and wait for things to pan out and frankly some of the things i've heard have made it even more imperative, i feel, to keep my distance. certain things we've heard, we

would rather have not have heard and certain things we've seen we would rather not have seen and it's nothing to do with politics. it's not a political issue, left, right, majority, whatever. but honestly, some words that have been uttered have been no more than that and i apologize for not saying anymore. >> polish public radio. mr. president, with president medvedev, you announced the technology transfer which led to concern in russia's neighboring states. what would you have to say to those countries to reassure them and what can you say to those that this sale is a kind of tit for tat or quid pro quo for russia's support on the libyan

dossier. >> there is no quid pro quo with a country as great as russia. this is what i believe, if my memory serves me well, russia is 46 time the size of france, twice the size of the united states. it has between 400 million inhappenitants and its population is diminishing by 70,000 to 80,000 a year. therefore, it's not growing, it's doing exactly the reverse. as its population dwindles or at least is reduced, it's more than unlikely that it would have any intention of invading its nauseous. if the european union's only adversary were russia, i would say the situation is very stable and we can sleep peacefully.

secondly, russia is a great country with a lot of commodities, raw materials. europe has a lot of technology. we can do a lot together and when we saw the president of the united states and the president of russia together at the nato summit, we thought, ah, at long last, the berlin wall has indeed come down, there is an end to the cold war once and for all but if russia are indeed our allies, why should we not sell ships to them? and do you think that it is for mistrials they would go off and invade who? whom do you think they might invade? as to my many friends in georgia, i think that to date, since i've been invited to go to georgia, they have moved on from the 2008 agreement and know full well that it was because france was in the presidency of the

european union that georgia is a free country. we stopped the tanks at 40 kilometers away, and medvedev kept his word so either we're friends or we're foes and if we're friends, we're friends, and if we're allies, we're allies, and why should we not have common projects. you've talked about massive technology transfer. what do you mean by massive? now adays, this day and age, whatever country, when you sell something to them, they ask for technology transfer. and if we hadn't done so, others would have been only too happy to do so and i'm thinking of our spanish friends, so, frankly, i take full responsibility for the decision that has been taken but i've never said anything else. there is no hidden agreement. in fact, at the time when we concluded the agreement, when we

clinched the deal, the libyan business had not even started because we were at the san jose shipyards and were in no way engaged in libya so there's no reason you should put the two but when mr. medvedev abstained from resolution 1793, we had not completed our negotiation on the contracts. >> a few weeks ago, sir, you agreed to accept an invitation to go to benghazi issued by the special transition council. can you say more about this? >> i've discussed it on several occasions with mr. jabril, a man of great quality, heading the national transition council, and we will indeed be going but when

the time comes to benghazi but what we want is that when the time is right this should be -- we should go there to have a working meeting, and meet all those who wish to build the democratic libya of tomorrow. and we should do this hand in mouth with the members of the transition council and i might add that we discussed this with david cameron. this should be a franco-british initiative. we are linked and have the same view of things and i think it will be ill conceived to go there separately. yes, it's on the table. we haven't set a date as yet for a certain number of reasons so perhaps there are still a couple of questions you wish to ask?

>> why has the g-8 not canceled tunisian debt totally and the e-g-8, is the e-g-9 now because mark zuckerberg from facebook there was, would you consider it a g-9. concerning the last remark, i'll relay that back to mark zuckerberg. in terms of the consolation of debt, we're not closing the door but we're not able to do that in the framework of the g-8. it's something from paris. maybe it's heavy for our friends in tunisia. there are poor countries counting on aid that are less advantaged than tunisia and if we decide unilaterally for one country to cancel the debt, all other countries will see that as a signal so we haven't closed

the door. we're going to speak about that. all the foreign ministers of the g-8 have been called together with the foreign minister of egypt and tunisia and we'll do the same thing for the finance ministers of the economy, so then we have to implement. we've made a commitment but we have to implement it and that requires technical work. perhaps last question, then? last question? >> good morning. question on libya again. today there are frozen assets and cash around the world that belong to the libyan leadership. the basis of the resolution of the u.n. have you, with the g-8, talked about freezing these funds to help the t.n.c. with its work to

free those funds up for the transition government and is it your personal view on this question? >> i think it should go quickly. that's my first point i want to bring. the t.n.c. needs the funds. those are assets that were illegally held at the foreign banks by a certain number of personnel and staff of the former libyan government or leadership but there are legal issues here and we are states that have rule of law and therefore the ends do not only have to justify the means, the ends have to -- the means have to be proper. so mr. jupay will be involved with the t.n.c., the money that is blocked on account, so we'll look at that issue very quickly, very soon. before i thank you for covering this g-8, i want to thank our friends of the region of

normandy and the population of deauville who have been very inconvenienced, i'm sure, by everything. it hasn't always been easy for the city to manage it. but they are certainly aware that their city and their region have been put in the forefront, in the projects and spotlights of the world, around the world, and i think that normandy has given us some beautiful moments with weather that was normandy weather that was perfect normandy weather, that is, some wonderful sunny moments and some beautiful breeze. i know that the farmers and those around here in agriculture would like to see more rain but we had a little bit but there's a great evolution, great dynamism in this region and every moment spent here in normandy is special and wonderful and for all those who us, we were dining with the president

quite late, we were on the beach, and there was an incredible sky out in front and during the dinner we all remarked how it changed colors and changed moods and angela merkel in particular noticed how was.iful it and if she's happy and touched by the environment at the g-8, then it's a successful g-8 for me, i can tell you that much. thank you. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, the impact of this year's middle east protests on palestinians and author douglas brinkley on the legacy of world war ii. after that, defense secretary robert gates gives the commencement address at the naval academy. on news makers this week, republican senator tom coburn of oklahoma. senator coburn was a member of the senate gang of six working towards a deficit reduction plan but left the group on may 17.

senator coburn talks about the nation's debt situation, the work of the gang of six and his involve woman john ensign. >> senator ensign was forced to resign. your ethics committee report has your name on it, how you tried to convince senator ensin to stop the affair and ultimately discussed the question as to whether or not you were an intermediary or working on the question of how to get mr. hampton out and whether there would be compensation. >> that's a totally inaccurate characterization of what happened. i got a phone call one day from hampton and he said would you communicate a message to john and i said, i don't know, i'll ask him if you want him to and i called john and he said yeah so the story you hear is not an accurate reflection of what happened. >> the group known as crew has filed an ethics complaint

against you. has the committee contacted you before it yet? >> i testified before the committee. i have no worries. what i did i would do exactly the same way again. we put two families back together with multiple children and both marriages are stable right now and i am proud of what i did and the way i did it and there's nothing unethical in what we did. >> you can see the entire interview with senator tom coburn on newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it's also available online at c-span.org. >> next, a discussion on the recent political unrest in the middle east and its impact on the palestinians. hanan ashrawi is a member of the palestinian legislative council. she's also a member of the executive committee of the palestinian liberation organization. she spoke at the carnegie endowment for international peace in washington, d.c. this is about 90 minutes.

>> good afternoon, and welcome to another event on the arab spring that we have at carnegie. it's a particular pleasure of mine to welcome to carnegie dr. hanan ashrawi who is not only, you know, not known to you, to the rest of the world, but is also someone i can claim as a close friend. hanan needs no introduction. she's the founder and executive committee chair on the palestinian initiative for the promotion of global dialogue and democracy. she's an elected member of the palestinian legislative council, the p.l.o. executive authority. she's more things than i can even start to count, but one

particular trait that i truly like about hanan is that she is someone who has always spoken to power and someone who is interested not only in peace but in democracy in, reform, on institution-building and someone who has devoted all her life for these noble goals. so, it is a particular pleasure of mine to introduce hanan. she will talk to us about the arab spring and we can all engage in a conversation about and other issues that i'm sure you're concerned with. welcome to carnegie. thanks. >> thank you. [applause] >> i thought the context was

palestine in the context of the arab spring. the elephant and the palestine question, you can't avoid palestine, especially in the arab spring. it is certainly a pleasure to be with you and particularly to be with mawan. if by now you haven't read his book, those of you who haven't, very carefully, should read it, because you would have been prepared for the arab spring because what was wrong with the arab center certainly was that the moderator, the political agenda on peace but this did not adopt reform agenda on human rights and democracy. it seems to me that book certainly forecast what's wrong with the arab world and it would have been a very good introduction for what's happening. also, those of you who haven't read his national reform plan in jordan, the first time i saw,

that i felt that it was something that could be the basis for national reform plans all over the arab world. and we tried to cooperate in our national reform plan in palestine so, again, you are a pioneer and have a sense of foresight that should have been listened to very, very carefully throughout the arab world and i thank you for being a good friend and for being such a person with astute insights and foresight. thank you. again, those of you who have read the u.n. human development report, remember the undp reports, should not have been by the rise of the youth, by the young generation, people feeling disenfranchised, excluded, oppressed, and so on, by the freedom deficit, democracy deficit in the arab world and many of the

demographic changes that there certainly would be serious upheavals before long in the arab world. all these things were in the making yet unfortunately most people were taken by surprise even though certain currents were beneath the surface and movements brewing with a certain inevitability. however, again, people were surprised. we are used to talking about the arab world as a polarized world and arab systems as polarized in the sense you have a national regime often seen as corrupt or inept or autocratic, dictatorial and so on and the only other authority being the opposite pole with political islam and that people in the middle generally are the democratic forces. this certainly is true. we had hoped in palestine we

would avoid this but ultimately the arab rift also reflected on palestine. we can talk about that later. again, client regimes that relied on external recognition also were losing credibility and standing and seen by their own people as being despotic, autocratic and repressive. but another aspect which has been ignored was the fact that they were seen to be helpless before israeli violations and before the ongoing injustice done to the palestinians. they were seen to be incapable of standing up to arab rights, arab causes, and they were seen as doing the bidding of others, external forces. and many of these were seen as using the security excuse, that we have an external enemy, in order to avoid any internal reform, to evade democracy and human rights and accountability

and persist with a system of abuse of power and corruption and misallocation of funds. and all these within the arab context contributed to the deepening rift in palestine because the arab rift and competition and polarrization reflected themselves within palestine particularly in the 1990's after the rise of hamas and it was, the rift was used for the -- and abused, actually, for personal or national self interest by different countries. when we talk about the arab spring, of course, we know this is not monolithic. we know each country has its different condition and there is a great deal of diversity within

the arab world and also a major feature is that we are in the midst of a period of flux, of change, of transition, which means, by definition, that it is painful, and in many cases, the outcome is not certain, the specifics of the outcome, but what is certain is that we are seeing a sea change, a definite break with the past, and a definite, in many countries, breaking of the barrier of fear, which is very important in the context of the arab people or the arab masses. now, many people look at it as internal reform and change, a cry for dignity, for freedom, for economic reform, for empowerment, for sharing in the resources and wealth, for participatory democracy, but still, as we said, a great deal of arab dignity, a great deal of the national arab dignity has

been affected by in the face of the continuing indignity of the occupation. so palestine has never been absent from the contemporary discourse in the arab spring. it remains vocal and emotive. even though many people say that the regime's exploited the issue of palestine for their own sake, but yet the people have a very emotive, visceral relationship to palestine, much more so than people thought, and they held their regimes accountable for being unable to do anything about it. and we had several meetings with some youth groups from jordan, lebanon, egypt, tunisia, syria, several places, and it was amazing how the young were really committed to the cause of palestine. they said putting our house in order is a way of liberating palestine and this is something

that people like netanyahu and israel tried not only to ignore but to affect a forced by saying, oh, the arab spring has nothing to do with palestine. those who know better know that the fate of palestine in the heart of the arab world has had a lot to do with the disaffection and anger grewing in the arab world and now the sense of reform and empowerment will deflect on palestine and any emerging representative democratic government will respond to people's priorities, of course. both internally as well as on the national level, palestinian case, and the same principles apply to all, which bodes well for energizing future arab engagement in the palestinian question and rectifying the

previous perceived enfeeblement, which meant they're standing up to their marginalization. this awakening among the palestinian people, in many ways was seen as reminiscent of the first intifada where you saw the public spirit, you saw solidarity, spontaneous uprising, a sense of self respect, dignity, standing up, unarmed protests, movements, men, women and children facing heavily armed israeli soldiers. this is the kind of invigerating energy that palestinians went through in the late 1980's and early 1990's and saw in the arab spring as something that's not entirely repetitive but reminiscent of that movement and resonated with the arab and

palestinian youth and within palestinian public opinion. and of course, all the means of communication, networking, sharing information, providing tools of mobilization have come to be used not just by the arab youth but by palestine. palestinians have always relied on the internet because we are divided, separated, subject to checkpoints, besiege and so on, so cyberspace has always been very expansive and the arab spring provided motivation but also, in a sense, common means of mobilization and sharing of information. identification and solidarity and it triggered further action. the thing is, palestine is unique because we are still under occupation. that's the thing, people are saying, well, when are you going to rise and we say, rise against

what? against whom? now, the movement for reform in palestine is a very, very active movement. and the movement for change is still a very active movement and civil society has always been among the most intrusive and critical of all civil societies in palestine as you know so there is that sense and people were looking for the right objective, the right slogans at this time. some young people focused on the need to end the division, ending the rift. this became a slowing an, a rallying cry, end the rift. occupation, you have the internal domestic needs of putting one's house in order and so on, also democratizing and reform and you also have need to stand up to the occupation and rid of the occupation and

they saw the rift and division as one way the palestinians were weakened and could not face the occupation the way they should have. among the first visible effect or result of the arab reform is reconciliation and unity within palestine. for many reasons, previously, as i said, the arab rift contributed to and exploited the palestinian rift. now the arab spring is contributing to the healing of this rift, first, because of the pressure of public opinion and the youth and so on, two, because of the energized role of egypt, and a different role within egypt. we can talk about that. and three, of course, because of the syrian crisis and what that is doing to hamas in one aspect. and there's a recognition, of course, that neither -- and we can talk about this later -- neither agenda really delivered, neither hamas' agenda or armed resistance could deliver, north

agenda of total commitment to negotiations could deliver. so there was disaffection with both. now, the arab spring also enhanced the massive popular nonviolent action or protest and resistance. this gave people the sense that this kind of approach would produce results where other approaches did not or could not produce results and the most visible, i think, outcome, is the example of the may 15 marches and the commemoration, not just within palestine but outside palestine, as a result, the communication and mobilization. may 15 proved that there is an additional aspect which is the popular unity of the palestinian people even in exile and in

refugee camps. the one aspect that was people always looked at the palestinians under occupation and the west bank and gaza and jerusalem, of course, and divisions and so on. but may 15 mobileide everybody and even the palestinians within israel so there was a sense of cohesion among palestinians that anywhere we are, we can present the same message. this is something new and is part of the arab spring regardless of the fact that some people try to stop it or some try to exploit it but this is important and i think you will see a growing movement there. again, another outcome of the awakening of the arab is the redefining of arab nationalism. i think we need hours to discuss this but i think this is important to at least allude to so we can explore it further. in a sense, this is a new

bottom-up, grass-roots movement, the basis of shared values and aspirations, probably global in nature, but also claimed by the arabs within the arab world as part of their own people's rights. so, particularly, in discussing israel's rights, democracy, freedom, dignity, human rights, system of good governance, accountability and transparency so on, these were seen as a means of reactivating the arab world and resolving long-standing grievances, problems and injustices within the arab system but not just intraarab, intrastate, but interarab issues. this was seen to be more effective and resonating globally than the tired cliches of traditional slogans of the

political elites and regimes that kept bashing everybody in the name of arab nationalism. now there is a new sense of a very active redefinition of arab nationalism which is closely to the sense of arab identity, arab dignity and so on, that we are not left behind, that we are not part of the 19th century, but really catching up to the 21st century. another redefinition is the redefinition of leadership and the source of legitimatesy and credibility. quite often arab regimes and leaders use their external connections and approval by western countries and so on as the source of their power and legitimacy and credibility rather than their own constituency, rather than responding to their own people's needs and rights. so this is shifting.

again, leadership and credibility do not come as a result of security, control or monopoly over the sources of power, be they wealth or natural resources or control over information and media or even arms and so on, all these additional sources of power. there are new sources of power and legitimacy now available and accessible, this is new. also, there are no longer inherited positions or connections or a sense of distinction and privilege and wealth and so on within society. also, not the membership in the ruling party. actually, egypt and tunisia and others demonstrated that membership in the ruling party which is corrupt and controlling and monolithic is a liability in the long run and this is what happened. in palestine, again, it's going to be a greater sort of more

complex situation because it's no longer just belonging to different factions. it's even no longer just being part of the historical national struggle or membership in any faction or how many times have you been to jail, the usual sort of nationalistic credentials. but there are new elements, again, based on the new definition, access to information and tools of mobilization as well as national commitment and being part of the struggle. so this meant, by definition, again, that the new leadership does not have the access of the old leadership to the streets, so to speak, to grass-roots movements, to connections and mobility and street action.

they haven't been engaging in actual organization on the ground or in party politics, which has bottom a major weakness because they have the theoretical know-how, they have meritocracy, they have ideas, not all entirely true, but at least they have those, and at the same time they still don't have the experience of of building, parties, of building real movements and so on which you need in order to participate in elections and so on and to bring about a leadership that can over. take so, with the weakness of the traditional opposition, as we saw in egypt and other with the weakness of the traditional opposition, as we saw in egypt and other places and even palestine, still, the lack of total prepared this, they knew there would be a time of transition, but we know the system certainly is moving ahead in favor of the new definitions of leadership we talked about

and also, there is a new coordination and identification with civil society, whose role is growing and whose influence is growing throughout the arab world. because it was the more oppressed in many ways for it was the most coopted in the arab world. now, it can sort of be part of shaping the agenda. palestine, as i said earlier, exposed be failure of the two agendas. we saw the armed resistance and unilateral cease-fire in gaza and changes within the political agenda of hamas and the ineffectiveness of only negotiations as a means of solution, given the fact that tremendous pressure was exercised on the leadership and on the -- in order to carry out or accept certain things that totally undermine them.

in the eyes and minds of their own people. the agenda of empowerment, a popular action and resistance, but also a need for innovative political programs, linking to the energized arab world and engaging the international community as an equal -- read engaging, so to speak. it is not enough to say that we have popular empowerment. you do have to have an agenda that works. you have to have a political vision of where you are going. this is important if the new leadership wants to succeed. there is an agenda here in palestine that is committed to going to the united nations, for example, but in itself, it is not an end. it is a means, going to get membership and international organizations is a way of validation and a way of trying to achieve recognition of your borders, your capital, and get access to international

organizations that would hold israel accountable. certainly, our agenda should involve nation-building and good governance. regionally, again, the arabs spring showed limitations of the role of non-arab players. i think it was in many cases exacerbated. that bears further study, but we believe it weakened the influence of non-arab players, and, of course, it exposed israel's failures. something we knew all along -- and occupation cannot be really democratic. but they were caught entirely off guard in the sense that they were desperately trying to resist change. remember when people were calling for regime change and getting rid of mubarak? it was netanyahu calling the americans and saying, "keep him.

make sure that you protect him. house democratic are you if you are asking the u.s. to intervene in domestic, democratic popular movement in egypt? the whole approach of israel is only what is good for israel and how it can subjugate the countries around and the leadership in order to maintain the status quo, which is an impossible task. if they have any sense, they know the status quo is certainly not sustainable. it cannot be maintained at all. even in syria, there were voices coming out saying, "we have a very calm border with syria. not a shot was fired." and so on. everybody was a lot to say that because you will condemn the city and the regime's -- everybody was saying not to say that. an understanding why they are being isolated or why the

occupation with delegitimizing israeli policies, claiming that the movement in the arab world is a movement to delegitimize and isolate israel, and this is absolutely misguided. instead of looking at themselves and understanding that the occupation and repression, violence and so on, the worst instruments that israel could use, and themselves being exposed as even obama said, themselves exposed the true nature of israel to an international public opinion that now is watching and that follows what is happening. netanyahu in essence presented himself and his policies as being very regressive, out of step with the times, trying to hold onto obsolete forms of power and control, trying to maintain in place a system of domination that has no place in the modern and contemporary

realities of the arab world. this certainly missed an opportunity to catch up, to engage by presenting a bold vision, and plan -- just present a peace plan, rather than this sense of presenting an overbearing, deceptive smear campaign and engaging in evasive tactics and so on and trying to really cloud the issues. his agenda certainly is totally in contradiction with everything that is emerging now in the region. so he front loaded now his position with all sorts of preconditions, including the palestinians to become not just zionists but extreme right-wing zionist by acknowledging the state

he front loaded his position with all sorts of preconditions, including palestinians have to become scientists -- zionists the extreme. we are struggling for pluralistic, and -- inclusive democracy. we are being asked to deny our history and past and the right of palestinians in israel by saying we will accept xo -- exclusivity in israel. knowing that it will not be done. he as a prerequisite, precondition that is not going to be accepted. he presented security for israel agenda. security is the defining principle. he wanted to maintain a military presence in the jordan valley, control over the borders and crossing points, or early morning stations, demilitarized palestinian state, etc., and lastly, decided on the outcome, the state of peace. he said the outcome of negotiation by saying no to the refugee right to return, no to jerusalem, and by deciding

single hadn't -- single- handedly they would and next the settlement blocks and, of course, by condemning israel, palestinian unit -- while on the one hand he said palestinians are divided. in gaza, we don't talk to hamas. of have to do is keep security. in the west bank -- does not represent all of the palestinians. so we have no part of. now they are saying if you are you 19, this means you are having this unity -- if you are you 19, you are having the palestinian equivalent of al qaeda. -- if you are uniting. entirely wrong and misleading and such a flimsy excuse for avoiding any engagement. first of all, you did not ask every single party to recognize a state or adopt a political platform consistent with what israel wants. two, we have a formula for the unification that put together a

government that is not a political address but the government that is an address for providing services to the palestinian people, building institutions, and so on. and it is going to be rate -- made up of independents, not card-carrying members of any party. and nobody is asking them to negotiate with the government. plo remains the address for negotiations. it is best for anybody knows anything about this situation -- you would know this is just a very flimsy pretext, an excuse that is baseless, actually. it is a non argument and i do not see why it was presented or even believe it. so, palestinian unity was another pretext he used.

and of course, he entered into -- i don't know, maybe in our society we tend to be much more polite, but it was a very rude confrontation with the u.s. administration. i do not know if you can go to of the white house and keep insulting the american president and get away with it. of course, he has always worked on this issue as having tactical gains at the expense of long-term strategic goals. he may have scored another point against president obama but i doubt whether this is going to bode well for the future relationship or even for his own standing in israel. because he thought this was one way he could address the likud and the right of likud. i don't think in a long run it will work. already i think it is beginning to backfire. hearing voices and israel and and that u.s. that it is a

clear case of overkill and you don't get away with itself in the present. lecturing people and coming to the states as if you own it. i doubt rather he would get such a reception anywhere in the world, including the knesset. another feature of the ict revolution is the compression and acceleration of time. i am saying this just to emphasize that there is a very pressing need within these changes in the arab world. either we move fast, decisively, and seriously and substantively on the issues and conclude a just peace or real peace or you lose the opportunity for a very long time. i don't think this is open- ended. i think it is a very strict time frame. ironically, obama was trying to persuade israel that peace is

in its own interests. he gave three reasons. remember? demographic argument that the palestinians are not going to stay a minority -- they will be a majority in the long run. it then talk about arab spring and regional development. and then of course he talked with the technological revolution, the knowledge that the whole world sees what is happening and israel is being isolated or criticized and it is losing its friends, so to speak. but even that does not move israel. one thing we did not say is a bold vision of a real plan that is workable. first of all, we need to contextualized -- the u.s. must understand the context of the palestinian question within the arab spring and the arab world. this has to happen with if we don't understand it -- we cannot constantly talking about self-determination, dignity,

freedom, and so on, and then put it aside and talk about the palestinians. because the palestinians are part of this. we are part of the need for freedom and self-determination. the same principle should apply. again, things like the rejection of going to the u.n., postponing jerusalem -- accepting the jewishness of the state. identification with israel and values -- guaranteeing security. all of these we heard. but i doubt obama said anything new when he talked about the 1967 boundaries and i am really shocked 19 -- netanyahu reacted with such hysterical abandon. totally unthinkable because every president in the last 20 years has been talking about 1967. george bush said the occupation that began in 1967 must end.

it is in the road map, the annapolis agreement and everywhere. it means that it netanyahu does not read or listen because the 1967 boundary is nothing new. to netanyahu, obama had the audacity of talking about 1967. it is is a route that has to set the agenda and boundaries -- israel has to set the agenda unilaterally. where do we go from here? more negotiations? two decades of negotiations produced more settlements, more suffering, loss of land, and ethnic cleansing in jerusalem, changing the character of jerusalem. what we need would be either a clear, bold plan that would change the dynamic on the ground and come to grips with the requirements of peace or you

have to go with the palestinians for pollock -- positive construction alternative. if you block us from the u.n., from getting accountability for israel, trying to get protection for the palestinians by peaceful means, non-violent means, then it seems to me you leave us with the option of violence as the only thing that works. even though we believe that violence is a non-option. but at the same time you cannot block a whole nation, keep it in activity under israeli domination which is, by the way, much worse than having your own regime oppress you because this is the type of oppression that is so pervasive that it affects every aspect of your life. it has to stop. it is time it stops. we have a timeframe. people have to understand the gravity of the situation between now and september. either we move ahead of opportunity is lost and we have either a break out of violence or a breakdown.

the forces that have been unleashed cannot be contained and the momentum is there. people are also acting with a new sense of self-respect, confidence, hope. this is what it takes to make peace. not a sense of defeatism or being broken. so we think the next move we need to discuss further has to be a collective multilateral global effort. perhaps with europe, expand the quartet, with an arab initiative that would produce new language and a new vision in the end time before matters get out of hand. thank you very much. [applause] >> putting the microphone on. let me start by picking up on your last comment about mr. netanyahu and what has taken place in this town in the last

few weeks. it is obvious that this town has witnessed a debate, may be behind closed doors, between those who wanted to move more proactively and in fact a package may be along the lines you outlined, and between -- that the president to wait until maybe after the presidential election. obviously the debate has been decided in favor of the second approach. the president did not have any steps outlined in his speech. even the general principles that he outlined received, as he said, a lot of criticism, both from mr. netanyahu and from the hill as well.

ist is on everyone's mind what would the palestinian response be? if in the context of -- in the context of the arab uprising. in other words, the issue of the arab sreet, as he pointed out, has not been a factor in u.s. decision making. people in this town feel that there is time. and that we can wait until the u.s. presidential campaign before we pick this up later on. what is your assessment of this? while has -- why has it not moved in a way that people thought it would? what is your -- [laughter] of the future, particularly

given the context of the arab spring. >> that is what i was saying, the sense of urgency. to say that we do not have unlimited time. within what is happening in the arab world there definitely is an acceleration of time. things are moving very rapidly. what you can take for granted today you can't take for granted tomorrow. it can't think anything for granted except change. the fact we are undergoing a people of change and the way people react. some react to it by shooting their own citizens and killing people at will. some trying to prevent them by carrying out a reform plan and so on. others sort of stepping down, liked in egypt and tunisia. in the face of overwhelming popular uprising. what the u.s. used to rely on -- the client regimes, so to speak, they cannot rely on.

they are not going to carry out the bidding of the u.s. anymore. even those who traditionally have done it have seen what happened to regimes who were seen as only clients of the u.s. rather than leaders who are generally doing the bidding of their own people or responding to the needs of their own people. so, that is the way in which the regimes are discredited and ultimately dislodge. whether the u.s. is willing to understand it or not is a serious issue. you do not have time. any new regime coming up will have of course on its plate a really have a domestic agenda, much of it having to do with the economic reform, economic prosperity, job creation. but it also will need to signal to its own people that it is a departure from the old pattern

of behavior with the west. we saw that leave egypt because the mubarak regime was procrastinating, was told we do not need palestinian unity, so they really didn't engage effectively. the mubarak regime closed the borders and so on in gaza. many egyptians were telling us, this is a source of shame for us, humiliation. we wanted a regime that was good for palestine, for their own people, not what the regime was told to do by the west and israel and so on. all the new regime is coming up it seems to me will try to carry out a domestic agenda, reform and so on, and to reestablish national credentials along the new lines we are talking about and to take steps pertaining to palestine.

and these steps are not going to be to accommodate priorities by the u.s. or others or to put pressure on the palestinians to accept what the u.s. needs or wants. we saw things happening before. that is a real change. it seems to me -- that is why we said the u.s. must contextualize what it is doing and the reason, must understand palestine is not outside the a question the way netanyahu said. there were not demonstrating for palestine or against israel. but if you look hard you know it is the motivating factor. two, there is a time frame. we cannot afford to wait until 2012. we cannot afford to wait until election campaigns and so on. there is a choice. you could either have a bold

vision and a clear plan of action and be willing to expend your credibility and your credit on affecting genuine change and making peace. or you can tread water and allow the dynamics. those are the two options. choosing to tread water means that the situation is going to deteriorate. it is not going to get any better. the other factor is the israeli factor. you had in israel one of the most extreme hard-line militaristic coalitions -- with a racist policies, of course. it certainly has an anti-peace agenda. anybody who heard netanyahu -- coming with a peace agenda, certainly has not heard him clearly. he came to say aye and closing all doors, that is it.

there is no peace unless you capitulate, you and the u.s. and we in palestine and accept what netanyahu things is best for everybody. this is certainly a recipe for disaster and instability and conflict and for violence. this government in israel -- now there are voices, people right thing in israel saying this is a very dangerous and irresponsible approach. relying on pr tricks and retain and scoring point is against the president and show on -- so on and showing you can go over to the congress. what next? where did you go from here? nothing. you have nothing to offer except more of the same of the situation that has cost the u.s. a great deal. it has cost of the best its credibility, standing, and a great deal of interest in the arab world, among the arab public, even if it managed to tame a few leaders.

it did not manage to tame the arab public. it is a new ball game, i think. >> another question -- this town a few months ago, mr. abbas was weak because he did not represent all the palestinians at any solution that the not include hamas would not last. now that he has made an agreement with hamas, the debate shifted, as you also said. how do you see the next steps moving forward after the government is established with hamas? do you see this as a positive or negative? >> i think this is extremely positive and a very badly needed step. when talk about empowerment, responding to the palestinian people's needs.

talking about repairing our democracy, an active, pluralistic system. putting hamas as part of the system and not as a replacement. we always said hamas belongs within this democratic and pluralistic system, not as a substitute for a replacement. that is the only way you can have a functioning political system that can claim to democracy. we started that unity with technical steps. we need a government that is a government of independents, professionals, that would deliver the services and build institutions and so on, and take care of people's needs. it has also additional task, prepare for elections. this is very important. so long as it is divided, we cannot have elections. whether local government,

legislative, national, or even national elections for the plo. we need it these elections because, first of all, it has brought into question the legitimacy of institutions. we needed elections. the legislative council -- the residential election. everybody attacking everybody else. hamas saying president is not legitimate. everybody's saying legislative council is no longer legitimate because it has run its course. people were saying the plo was obsolete because the president had elections and the needed to have elections in order to represent all of the palestinians, including hamas and others. that has to be done in a way to include palestinians in exile.

to do that, which is a real requirement for a democratic system in palestine, -- i do not what does the government because we are unique in that our government is not political. that meant we needed to move ahead and we needed to have this unity to carry out elections. otherwise it is very easy to stop the elections. we said local government elections, hamas said no, prevented the election commission's from working in gaza and that is it. you cannot have elections in one place and not the other. the same thing with presidential and so on. the other task is gaza. the situation is absolutely drastic. it is in humans. gaza has been destroyed, devastated.

and yet under siege and without the ability and the materials and funding to rebuild it. we can start rebuilding -- under the moves and start -- to start rebuilding and get the funding. the problem is there were lots of funds pledged to rebuild gaza but they were not delivered, were not materialized. and because of the -- because of the rift and division, no one was able to start rebuilding gaza. now we can get the alleviation of the human suffering and gaza is very crucial. then you have to have a plan for the reunification of the institutions within the west bank and gaza. other than the elections as well. and further along this would be not just the service departments but security. we have a reform plan, as you know, a couple of one that we worked very hard since the 1990's in which we set the

security forces after the reforms in a sense that they have to be merged. we need no more than three and a need to be totally de- politicized and totally subjects to the political executive authority. that is why you have to guard our own unity. we have to tell them this is not about security. it does not mean i have so many in hamas. by putting in the professionals. it is a long agenda. we already have problems about using even the names of the prime minister. you do everything by consensus.

when you do it by consensus, you will have people objecting. i think there is enough determination to understand if we do not succeed, it could be suicide domestically. this message has to be understood by the rest of the world. i think the americans are beginning to see this. the fact that hamas has accepted the prime minister's elections. it has designated the presidency as the political -- it would allow for the palestinians to make decisions without talking to everybody. it comes to negotiations, it will have to be presented by the public. >> let's open it up. if you can identify yourself.

>> i come from the international crisis group. my first question is, the strategy of buying time which has been opted for for 40 years, it is coming to an end. my question -- my second question is, at the plo, are you considering, one way or another, how to stimulate the dormant influence of saudi arabia over the united states? >> we will take another question. >> i what -- your introduced by

someone as saying who speaks truth to power. it might also be useful to speak truth to the powerless. i'm speaking about palestinian refugees. whether there is worry is not a universal right to return regardless of the language of the universal declaration or in the general assembly resolution. it seems the israeli public is united against the fact of the palestinians returning. at what point do you have a conversation with refugees about alternative futures so there is not another generation of people languishing in refugee camps. thank you. >> i am an egyptian american

living here. you describe the prime minister's visit, even after he offended the public present -- the president publicly, and gave his awful speech at the congress, i am sad about the joint session of congress, senators and representatives, giving him 26 standing ovations. >> i did not count them. >> you were saying the american public opinion is changing. i do not think it is. if these are the people, and the media again, obama talked about the middle east. everybody talked about how bad obama is for mentioning the dirty word "1976."

i would hope to change this subject. >> one more question. >> a recovering journalists from the atlantic council. whenever i see you remember meeting you 20 years ago when there were the post-madrid talks. >> the good old days. >> we were a good team. >> the question is about not violence, but non-violence. you spoke about the new tactics that were being used. is there thought to mobilize palestinians to march in east -- east jerusalem in the old city? and not to throw rocks but to use non-violence to press the case. when you talk about -- you know the united states will veto any

declaration of independence. is this going to be -- the plo has representation around the world. what is the point of pushing it? >> your first question is absolutely right. we have no more time. the conditions on the ground make any solution impossible. that is it. when you talk about the state solution coming to an end, the option is not a one state solution. it is not something we can work on. there has to be a more confrontational and more control. would that generate more violence or not? would that insight public opinion or not?

would that change the relationship between governments that have agreements with israel? those are questions that are going to be raised if we do not understand there is no more time to be bought. on the issue of the -- of saudi arabia, it is not just saudia arabia but the whole arab world. it has resources. it should be able to use all of these and not just its relations with the u.s. so far they were neutralized in many ways. saudi arabia probably understands the next phase is different. there are people talking about the new alignment of the arab world. whether it is a monarchical system, the axis of the ball or

the access of momentum and modernization. it is still too early to predict. there are certainly alignment's within the region. saudi arabia understands that. they have to, in many ways, use their power to try to do justice to the palestinians and bring about peace. we are not asking for them to invade israel and liberate us. we need peace before it is too late. speaking to the powerless, you cannot make it a precondition to abandon the rights of the palestinians and get the leaders to say we will violate international law and the rights of our own people and we will tell them you have no rights. the only way to deal with the refugee question, you have to

acknowledge their history, their suffering, its responsibility with the palestinian refugees. they did not become refugees because the arab world told them, we know what happened. 1948 is clear. that is the first step. the second is acknowledging their right. you could not exclude them from the protection of international law. because the israelis are afraid, you do not have any rights. you cannot do that. that is not the issue. the issue is, you have to acknowledge their rights. 194 un charter. the palestinians are no exception.

you cannot cast them out the protection of the law. when you have the third option, then you can discuss alternatives and options provided you give them the right to choose. once these steps are done, then you can discuss all sorts of options and alternatives and so on. and give them the right to choose. that is the only way this will be solved. but to deny this, it means you're telling every palestinian leader, negate their rights. in order to be able to talk to us. the arab initiative had the formula that, a mutually agreed solution to the refugees -- refugee question based on the u.n. resolution 194.

let's look at the different ways we can implement to save the refugee's writes -- rights so they will not be bereft of any recognition. the steps are essential. that has to be said by everybody. the joint meeting, not a joint session. there is something legal about session versus meeting. it was a joint meeting. a session is only when the president is there. unless netanyahu thinks he can become the president. [laughter] a joint meeting. i will give you my point of view. i do not want to insult anybody. it was demeaning.

if i were an american, i certainly would not accept this type of treatment where somebody who is insulting the president, who is defined the american system -- defying the american system. we take this seriously. to go to the representatives of the public and get them to cheer him against their president. regardless the pot -- party politics or anything. i felt that was insulting and demeaning. if i were a congressman or senator, i would not have done that. i would have been careful about safeguarding my national interests as opposed to israel's.

public is opinion -- public opinion is shifting. if you go to universities, people are learning more. they have access to dissident information sources. they are seeing what is happening. they are engaging more. they're expressing a will to challenge the process and the problems. the obscure the facts and the truth. american public journalists have a sense of fair play. how come we did not know these things? i get out of the time. they have to hold representatives accountable. representatives think they can take -- make policy decisions on behalf of the executive rather than understanding what the goal is. the public has to hold them

accountable, not just on issues of education and health care, but also where they are meddling in areas that are extremely dangerous and that could threaten, as the american military said, matters of natural -- national interest. this sort of blind allegiance is -- ah. what is funny now, there are certain people who will take whatever netanyahu says and turn it into the gospel truth. there are people like that. there are also critical people in the media. i have been reading all sorts of articles and so on that are questioning this kind of attitude and are criticizing the fact that when you do things

that go against your national interests, that ours for short- term gratification, that this is a serious indulgence that could backfire. in the long run, yes, american public will make a difference. think tanks will make a difference. access to information will take -- make a difference. we have always been the "other." of the strange. people do not know us for what we are. we have to challenge misconceptions. the language that presents us to them, as terrorists and all that, maybe it is ignorance. people should know the truth. you cannot hide this. this is not 1948. this is the 21st century. people can get to the facts.

we should make sure they do. it is our greatest ally, the truth. it might not be enough to set us free, but it is a beginning. non-violence did break up. remember the intafada? we were beaten up. we were arrested. we went day after day after day. we exposed the limits of power of the military occupation. when faced with a people's will to be freed. acts of violence and song, -- so on, it was exploited against us. we stood up and condemn the violence. especially against civilians.

as extremists justify everything that happened afterward, mobilization, yes. it will happen. you saw how we mobilized. as i said on may 15, this is something new. it is not to palestinians in the west bank. palestinians in lebanon and syria, jordan, even in the united states. there is a sense of solidarity and identification. the pride of the palestinians. we will not be silenced. we will not be oppressed and excluded. we have a message. this is something that israel has to understand. and the u.s. both. there is an opportunity to resolve this. we gave them that opportunity. the arab world gave them that opportunity.

if you do not take it, it will not be to anybody's liking. it will be painful. you will see that the palestinians will resort to a popular non-violent action. can anything be worse than the settlements done by the u.s.? the u.s. said settlements are illegal. they have to stop, right? and yet when we went to the u.n. to get a resolution, using american language, the u.s. was in an awkward situation of having to veto a resolution that was based on their own policy. for the sake of israel. that is something that is i cannot believe. this is the greatest power in

the world so far. it might not be there for long, but still, you are violating your own policy for illegal actions of israel. this is unheard of. they put so much pressure on all of us using their arab allies, not to go to the u.n. the pressure was very great. they used all of our friends to tell us we should. we have to have access. we have to have recourse. we cannot constantly be shut down. the strategic alliance is playing against our rights and against its jerusalem. if they want to veto the right to persuade the europeans not to support our recognition, i want

to explain this. what we are asking for is not recognition. we do and have 116 countries that recognize us. that kind of reckoned -- recognition we are getting and we will accumulate recognitions, whether from latin america or the arab world. we will accumulate recognitions. we want to safeguard our land, our borders. we go to the u.n. it is not a unilateral declaration of independence. it is going to the address of international law. where we going? it is not unilateral. we, as victims, as palestinians of occupation who have had no

support on the issue of our own freedom and independence, we are going to the source of international law. this is where the international community is. please accept this as a member. we are going -- we are an observer. we are always punished because we do not have the rights or access. once you get membership, it means you have access. you have access to all the judicial accountability within the system. then you have the recognition you do have the boundaries, 1967 are your banters. that you do have rights. if they veto, we will resort to the 1914 peace provision and go to the assembly and ask for a majority to accept us as a

member of the assembly. that is what we need to do. uniting for peace is an american invention. during the cold war, the korean crisis. we have been slapped with about 30 vetoes by the americans only for the sake of israel. it is time there is a recognition the palestinians have some humanity and rights. there is a consensus emerging in the international community. you cannot stop the flood. you cannot keep holding back recognition and human rights and awareness and solidarity for the sake of all the things israel is doing. >> let's take a question in the back. >> i am from the imf. we have seen from what happened

in the arab spring, that non- violence has been one of the factors of the effectiveness of the protests and for the backing of the international community of of those movements. you have spoken about the u.n. and the possibility of acceptance by the general counsel of palestine. it is still a problem of occupation. somebody in the audience mentioned the effectiveness of nonviolence. you were active during the first intifada in motivating and organizing -- organizing the non-violent demonstrations. they were quite effective. i liked your poetry you wrote at that time. >> thank you. >> what is now your message to

those -- to the average palestinian, who are asking, what should we do after september? how should we resist the occupation? would you be willing to participate in a non-violent movement? >> two more questions. we do not have much time. ambassador. >> i apologize for not having advanced permission. i brought along copies of a film that i did in which you have an interview as a key part. i brought some copies so people can help themselves. it is called "searching for peace in the middle east."

there just as relevant as when he spoke them a few years ago. >> thank you. >> i apologize for having been late for reasons beyond my control. i wish to greet you here. the last time i greeted u.s. and qatar. -- you was in qatar. i need your input. the first one was that israel under the help of the united states is pursuing a policy of racism. i just heard george mitchell yesterday talking about the

jewishness of israel. that is pure racism. this has been expelled by a second rate president of the united states who was george w. bush when he called it a jewish state. the second thing is that israel had been conducting a policy of armed robbery ever since it was created. it has become isolated within the world with the exception of the united states. how can we spell out this armed robbery notion to the world everywhere. this is essential. thank you. >> maybe one more question.

>> you mentioned the that you have been asking the united states for help to resolve this with the assumption the united states was a kind of a mediator or a disinterested mediator. that was not true. if,dn't it have been better as palestinians, you had a situation like syria? at least have the protection of the russians to say any resolution in the security council would be vetoed x or, for that matter, when india and pakistan were in conflict, the united states was supporting pakistan. that is how india was able to get the upper hand.

wouldn't it be better for you to look for somebody like russia, china, weber to back you far better than the support you are getting from the united states and the runaround for all of these years? from 1967 until now. this is one problem that has lingered on for too long. it is sad that the united states has been able to bluff everybody and still continues to veto. >> thank you. i did not take your name from the imf. thank you very much. i am glad you read my poetry. it means a lot to me.

you need poetry to deal with this situation. non-violence has always been the most effective means. we use that as you know. i continue to be abolished because there are many ways of expect -- expressing resistance in which the human spirit, in which you have the moral high ground. in which you defy and exposed the limits of power and the morality of the occupation by being more moral than they are. i really think that we can legitimize and reenergize of the nonviolent movement in palestine. it has been going on for years. in jerusalem and other places.

the constant, non-violent protests that are being faced with extreme violence. many internationals were injured and killed. many i forget her name. i should not have forgotten. she got no protection, even from her own government. there are many people who have joined us in a nonviolent resistance. after september, i think we can not give up. we have to continue, we have to pursue.

holding israel accountable if all of these efforts are ported, you cannot control everybody and everything. you cannot keep using the same means if nobody is listening to you. the occupation, by definition, it is violent. when you are facing it with non- violence, if you expose it the way it we did, that is fine. but if you do not, people start thinking the same attitude. this is where you began to lose, unfortunately. but you do not control all the elements and tell everybody talks break you have to constantly -- and how everybody

talks. -- acts. thank you very much. you have always been a great advocate of justice and peace. we should acknowledge your efforts. you have stood up and you have spoken out. the question of be -- this is a new precondition. we have never asked to -- i do not remember ever being told. we were asked to recognize israel in 1994. after the meeting of the pnc in 1988. we recognize the state of israel. which is what we thought happened.

israel recognized the plo, not palestine. that was a condition. suddenly, netanyahu came up with the idea that if the palestinians do not recognize the jewish state, it means that they want to destroy. but we have recognized the state. i do not see any other country that asks for the ethnic or religious character of the state to be mentioned in political recognition. >> [inaudible] >> that is not part of israel's name. this is unique. we have a bent -- israel is the

only country in the world. you are accused of being a traitor correct -- you are accused of being a traitor. what is a state board? -- state for? there are not jewish citizens. the palestinians have been there for centuries. you can not mollify them, you cannot negate them, you cannot say that if you are not jewish, you do not have any rights. there are voices calling for a gaza and egypt and the west bank.

there are all sorts of other worldly solutions based on its exclusivity period -- exclusivity. discrimination. you have to accept the fact that we live in a world that does not close up itself and does accept the others and was recognized that we are not to all monolithic. this is a negation of our history, of their rights of non-jewish palestinians and israel. it is a negation of the right of the palestinian people. i doubt whether obama or anybody else would ever use the term,

but the christian united states of america. nobody would do that for any other -- the exception alyssum of israel is something -- it accepts -- exceptionalism of israel is something like nothing else. once this becomes a state, maybe it will interact with a region as an equal. of landke the issue confiscation. settlements are based on land that. they have taken other people's land. the land should be used for

their own benefit. we did not ask for the u.s. for help. u.s. is the only country that supported the israelis, but now we know better. during the cold war, of course, we tried very hard to not take sides. we were always under occupation, so we could not go and say, we want to be a satellite of the soviets to union. we just wanted the international community to end the occupation on the basis of fairness. that is all we want. unfortunately, you do have one power, you have the u.s.

ending the conflict. and bringing about peace to the region. so far they have failed. >> [inaudible] >> when i said years ago, i hate to repeat myself, the worst thing a professor can do. you can never accuse the u.s. of being even-handed. never. we know there is a strategic alliance with israel. this is a longstanding policy. when the issue of the oldest -- to the point that it becomes nauseous. ultimately, every country is going to look out for its own interests. israel is becoming a liability,

for everybody. the occupation is a liability. this blindness to the needs of and the rights of people, and the palestinian rights, is going to backfire. it is going to cost the u.s.. we talked about how the american military was saying that israel is a liability in the sense of what it does and the region reflects on the u.s. and it affects american standing and lives. it contumely will do things and uses this aligns to cover eight >>. -- cover its acts. we are not asking for support,

we are asking for justice. that is all. we will go when -- we will go wherever it is needed. we did not want to be a part of any alliance. that is what we want, and i think you have a lot people who are sitting this and in support, europe, latin america, the arab world. there'll be a change here. i know how frustrating it can be. i've been coming years since i was a student, keep pushing that rockville and it keeps coming back. ultimately, you cannot rely on be ignorant of people. this is a very fickle -- ignorance is easy to disband. thank you. >> please join me in thanking

her. [applause] >> thank you. >> next, the legacy of world war ii. robert gates is the commencement address at the naval academy. " there are three days of book tv this holiday weekend.

one of the largest federal sting operations in u.s. history. the untold story of barack obama's mother. paddles on feminism and a rare books of 2011. activist and filmmaker michael more on his upcoming memoir. find a complete schedule at booktv.org. >> a discussion on the historical impact of world war ii. this is an hour. ii memorial. you have a good weekend, too. host: on yourcreen is the national war the war ii memorial -- national world war ii memorial.

it was dedicated in 2004 by president george w. bush. on this memorial day eve, we will discuss and look at the world war ii memorial a discuss as well world war ii on the st hour of "washington journal." we are joined by american historian douglas brinkley, who is one of many books is "world war ii memorial: a grateful nation remembers." thank you for being with us on a hot friday morning. what did it take us some years after world war ii to build and dedicate this monument? guest: remember, world war ii consumed our country. we lost 400,000 americans, man many more wounded physically and psychogically. se gi's comee

home and want to get back to normal, drink coca-cola, go to the movies, be part of the healing of the country. in the 1950's and 1960's, as you did not have or ii veterans standing up, and we had the controversial vietnam war dividing the nation. that was n a good war. suddenly, by 1984, and ronald reagan, i believe was the catalyst -- he went to normandy and talked about the u.s. army's second rangers climbing the cliffs and getting shot down. all over america in the 1980's, people recognized they had war heroes in the neighborhood. everybody said to stand up, on and on. it created a wave, a notn -- where is our world war ii

memorial? many americans, not least of which is senator bob dole of kansas, stood up to make this happen. host: let's talk about the design. who designed it? why are there 56 of these all about? guest: the architect was frederick st. laurent, and it came from a pool of 400 excellent designs picked it right behind me, it's as the virgin islands, the philippines, puerto rico. alaska and hawaii were not states, so you get those later in the 1950's. all of our territories, and also, washington, d.c. gets 1. it is 56, and on top of all our 56 -- are 56 oak reeds but all round. 56 in all. host: at the end or two end pieces. guest: this is it the atlantic,

and the other side is the pacific. our great commander-in-chief franklin roosevelt -- words are car from bh sides. in addition to that, if you go over to the pacific side, you see quotations from the great walter lord carved, douglas macarthur. you get people out of the atlantic. in between, there is a lot of efforts made to include women in the story, the rosy the river story -- rosie the riveter story. norfolk, detroit, a san diego, the airplanes that henry ford built up in dearbor area. it is trying to encompass the entire war experience. host: doug brinkley is our guest, a wl-known american historian. we are at the world war ii memorial on the national mall, talking about the memorial as

well as world war ii. we want to get your participation as well. we set aside our third line this morning for world war ii veterans. about 16 million people were in uniform during world war ii. according to the veterans administration, about 2 million veterans still survivor from world war ii. we would love to hear from you and get your perspective. doug brinkley, before we got started, there were some school kids yelling at us and having a little bit of fun. you made a sort of an aside comment that this memorial has

lost so much of its meaning. what did you mean? guest: unfortunately, memorial day has been a day for barbequeing and a day off and set of remember why you and i are here today, trying to remind people of the cost of freedom. we're talking about world war ii, but all wars. max cleland will be at the american bebattlefield commission . as a going over to normand where money has been put in it for coastal erosion of a cliff, to make sure that the cemetery's properly taken care of. we have to reclaim the holiday, just like president's day, for what the original meaning was not go any kind of programming -- for with the original meaning was. any ki of prograing that can show us the cost of our

freedom, whaour ancestors did for us. host: overall, do you know with a cost of world war ii was? guest: well, the cost was our freedom to read it hitl -- while well --, the cost was our freedom. if hitler had developed the a- bomb before we did. after all, pearl harbor -- we were bombed at pearl harbor. the germans declared war on the united states. this was not a war chores like the mexican-american war -- this was not a war of choice like the mexican-american war. and the technology, even things we are doing with c-span right now, some of the technology of the film and cable transmissions, the electronic journalism world started changing. everything changed in world war

ii. development was intense in so many different area. what about the economic cost? guest: i think it is a small estimate. keep in mind, industrial mobilization -- say a factory in connecticut making women's blouses, suddenly making parachutes. a company that would make horns suddenly was making a ship of valves. that was the miracle of the world war, the way our country pull together and everybody chipped in with the war effort. we do have a great world war ii memorial across from rosenthal's ghraib photographs of -- great

photograph of iwo jima. but that is for the marines. this is america's world war ii memorial. we were all in it together, working to get rid of japanese warlords in german fascism. host: doug brinkley, is ther a national world war ii museum? guest: there is in new orleans that started out as a d-day museum but has branched out to be much more than that. enter ggins started building those landin crafts and if you look at a movie like "saving private ryan," they open up and about 35 men would rush to shore. new orleans was another one of these chubs, and the dream started by steven ambrose -- stephen ambrose, my late friend,

historian. if you care about the world war, go to this memorial, and then bring your kids to new orleans for the natnal museum. at the holocaust museum. oh, it is just remarkable, in the 1990's, when elie weisel, who wrote "night" and other incredible stories of survival, and he was at auschwitz, and walter cronkite watched it as a q&a. it is mandatory to visit the holocaust museum to understand that side of the world war. host: utah for a long time at the university of new orleans and now teaching at rice university. what are you in d.c. today? guest: i am working on a book on walter cronkite. i'm interviewing people from roger mudd, les moonves, bob

woodward. i member to my book out in the spring of 2012 -- i am bringing my book out in the spring of 2012. host: first call, lee and connecticut. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: when are we going to learn the truth about the start of world war ii? roosevelt wanted to be a war hero like his cousin teddy, and he knew about the bombing of pearl harbor at least two weeks in advance, but he was pushing us to t into a war. also, with all the communists you had in his government, we abandoned our troops in the philippines and sent all the aid to the russians. why did we do that? host: all right, thank you, lee. doug brinkley. guest: here on memorial day weekend, we want to thank

franklin roosevelt for the extraordinary job he did as commander-in-chief, picking people like george marshall to dwight eisenhower bradley, patton, this incredible group of leaders that he surrounded himself -- military leaders he surrounded himself by. the caller is dealing in the back door to more theory, debunked by -- back door to war era, did not by scholars. this wacky notion that -- debunked by scholars. this wacky notion that roosevelt, who lov our navy is a much, allowed it to be destroyed to bring the country to war. it is similar to the obama birth certificate or things that come out of jfk's assassination. there was missives, intelligence missives, saying

that there was unusual japanese behavior going on. people don't realize that the president gets all sorts of information every day, and history is so much in retrospect that you say, "why did you notice this, why didn't you notice that?" that does not mean we do not debate the issue of how we got into war, to say that roosevelt was some kind of a scoundrel that allowed at the armada to be bombed in pearl harbor is kind of reprehensible. host: what happened on september was the and onwhat interim period like and what was the attide of the american people? guest: there was a lot of isolationist sentiment. famously, charles lindbergh and henry ford were opposed to intervention. there was this sense we got hoodwinked into world war i and now we were getting into another dirty european civil war.

roosevelt was constantly doing what every one trying to help our l.a. great britain out -- there was a series of events that occurred, but go back and read the gre freedom speech of franklin roosevelt, or the atlantic charter agreement between churchill and roosevelt up in newfoundland -- he said the cornerstone of the alliance is giving aid to britain at the right time. there is a whole group of the events that occurred leading up to pearl harbor. we did have an understanding of just how evi the third reich in germany was, and how dangerous japan's militarism had become. by the time pearl harbor came around, roosevelt and the country were ready to act. but roosevelt had to educate the public to get ready for the big board. host: september 1, 1939, is the day that nazi germany invaded poland. william i. ohio.

good morning, william. william, you with us? caller: can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: ok, i visited about five years ago the memorial. beautiful. it is all inspiring. -- awe inspiring. i am sad come in a way, that many of the fellows i wouldike to have all of them visit, but they are gone. their lives are gone, finished. i will be 87 in october. the thing about the memorial is it took so long to get it builtit but -- get it built, but that is the way things go. i was in the norman invasion, first wave. ipad capt., navy capt. it -- i

had a captain, navy captain, that was on brd. i was 19 at the time, and i suppose that is why they figur you want somebody real young. i got up on the bridge, and the captain asked me if i would stand on that little platform attached to the bridge. i had an eye view of the whole thing. i saw them all lined up, i saw all the different types of landing craft lineup, a first wave, and we went in on omaha beach. that changed my whole life, that one day in my life still imprinted. i can see it right now, the beach, probably like a football field to get to the hill. we had these two ramps, one on

each side, and they told these ramps on. and the infantry, we had about 130 on board, and they ran on the beach. maybe half of them did not make it. it was a terrible sight. anyway, on that beach, it took quite a while, all morning -- in fact, we worried we might even get pushed off, because they cannot go forward. but they finally broke tough to my left way down on the beach, and tthey got up to the top, and the boys were able to move on up. by late afternoon, things were pretty well, as far as the beach was concern, under control. was concern, under control.